Bob Sneidar wrote:
Well it's not like that at all. It's more like she promised not to use the credit card, and then did anyway. After her husband got upset she took the stuff back and got a refund. Is her husband now justified in being angry that she got the refund? THAT is what it is like.
Please keep in mind that RevMobile (like Flash and the rest) was fully compliant with Apple's SDK license version 1, 2, and 3, and was only redefined as "criminal" very late in the game with v4.
Given that, it's more like the husband told her to use the credit card, drove her to the mall, helped her pick out a dress, and only got mad when she took it to the counter.
But I agree that this metaphor is a bit stretched for the circumstance it describes.
Among the other ways it breaks down, I don't believe the decision to remove the "originally written in" clause came from Jobs at all.
We may never know the backstory on how Apple's iOS SDK license returned to sanity from the darkly lame weirdness it had devolved into. I'm just glad it did.
-- Richard Gaskin Fourth World Rev training and consulting: http://www.fourthworld.com Webzine for Rev developers: http://www.revjournal.com revJournal blog: http://revjournal.com/blog.irv _______________________________________________ use-revolution mailing list use-revolution@lists.runrev.com Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription preferences: http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-revolution
