On Fri, 07 May 2010 08:09:08 -0400, Michel Fortin
<[email protected]> wrote:
On 2010-05-07 07:29:13 -0400, "Steven Schveighoffer"
<[email protected]> said:
On Fri, 07 May 2010 07:14:34 -0400, Manfred_Nowak
<[email protected]> wrote:
http://daringfireball.net/2010/04/iphone_agreement_bans_flash_compiler
-manfred
I don't see how they can possibly enforce this rule. First, how do
you tell that the language was originally one of the sanctioned
languages? Second, for the Unity3D mentioned in the article -- I
guess developers write in C# and it translates into objective C. The
code exists as an objective C project, how is that any different than
someone who wrote it directly as objective C? This smacks of the same
lawyer thinking as the DMCA. I hope Adobe challenges this as an
antitrust violation.
Most languages comes with a runtime. They just have to do some pattern
matching looking for the runtime. Of course if you do things in secret
with your own secret runtime and don't talk publicly about it, they may
never find out. They may also enforce this selectively against things
they don't want (such as Flash), but this adds a high level of
uncertainty (as if there wasn't already enough).
Can't you just strip the symbols from the executable? I'm not familiar
with iPhone development since I lack a Mac.
They want the original source code to be in Objective-C, with no
translation layer, so it bans pretty much everything out there. It's
quite insane. I mean, can't I use yacc and lex? (They'll probably never
look for this, but the terms, as written, bans this.)
Yes, that's why I feel it's like the DMCA. Unenforceable and unfair.
I've been quite vocal about this on my blog. In case someone feels like
adding comments, here are the posts in chronological order:
Collateral Damage
http://michelf.com/weblog/2010/collateral-damage/
A reconciling proposal
http://michelf.com/weblog/2010/reconciling-proposal/
Making their jobs easier
http://michelf.com/weblog/2010/making-their-job-easier/
I don't have any app on the app store, but I've manually translated a
game from D to C++ before (Tumiki Fighters) for a client of mine who
wanted an iPhone version. Strictly speaking, the new terms would ban
this too (it wasn't "originally written" in C++), although I don't
expect Apple to do anything about this. Note that the new iPhone
agreement also forbid developers who agreed to it to criticize it
publicly, and you can't publish on the App Store without agreeing to it.
Scary.
Well, I guess I will publicly criticize until I agree to the license :)
The truth is, this hurts tool-makers like Adobe and 3rd party langauge
developers more than individual developers. Xcode is free I think, and so
is the SDK. Ideals aren't going to stand in the way of me making a
million dollars if I create the hottest new game.
I do hope that those tool makers don't sit idly by. With the statement
that Adobe is releasing a "flash to iphone" compiler, I would expect them
to defend their investment in the courts.
-Steve
