iPhone OS 4 SDK, section 3.3.1

The old version:

3.3.1 — Applications may only use Documented APIs in the manner
prescribed by Apple and must not use or call any private APIs.

The new version:

3.3.1 — Applications may only use Documented APIs in the manner
prescribed by Apple and must not use or call any private APIs.
Applications must be originally written in Objective-C, C, C++, or
JavaScript as executed by the iPhone OS WebKit engine, and only code
written in C, C++, and Objective-C may compile and directly link
against the Documented APIs (e.g., Applications that link to
Documented APIs through an intermediary translation or compatibility
layer or tool are prohibited).

Anyone have any thoughts on this change to the agreement?

Appeal to apple regarding to squeaks apple origins?
However, this part actually makes me sad…

So Long,
        -Tobias
Am 2010-04-08 um 23:43 schrieb Sean Malloy:

Say nothing at all and maybe Satan won't notice that we don't really want to borrow his tools.


Sent from my fracking iPad.



On Apr 8, 2010, at 9:50 PM, Tobias Pape <[hidden email]> wrote:

Hey Casey if you've an iPad can you pick up a copy of Scratch and tell me how it runs?
Sadly zero iPad Scratch users have given feedback.


On 2010-04-08, at 9:54 PM, Casey Ransberger wrote:

> Say nothing at all and maybe Satan won't notice that we don't really want to borrow his tools.
>
>
> Sent from my fracking iPad.

--
===========================================================================
John M. McIntosh <[hidden email]>   Twitter:  squeaker68882
Corporate Smalltalk Consulting Ltd.  http://www.smalltalkconsulting.com
===========================================================================

Haha, John! I was meaning to ask about how the VM was treating you on the Apple processor:) Picked it up yesterday. Thanks for reminding me, Scratch is installing right now.



On Apr 8, 2010, at 10:38 PM, John M McIntosh <[hidden email]> wrote:

On 4/8/2010 2:43 PM, Sean Malloy wrote:
> Anyone have any thoughts on this change to the agreement?

Just in case anyone had any illusions on this:

http://computinged.wordpress.com/2010/04/15/apple-removes-scratch-from-ipadiphoneitouch/

Cheers,
   - Andreas

Andreas Raab wrote:
Oh! How silly then can be!

:(
Juan Vuletich

On 4/15/2010 11:50 AM, Juan Vuletich wrote:
Indeed. Well, I'm looking forward to a nice Android tablet.
BTW, we can use some help and you won't even have to sign an NDA:

http://code.google.com/p/squeak-android-vm/

Cheers,
   - Andreas

Em 15-04-2010 15:59, Andreas Raab escreveu: It seems that under new license the only admissible languages for
iPhone/iPad development are: C, C++, Objective-C and Javascript... so
squeak and derived tools are out.

Best regards,

CdAB

Yes extremely sad.
I imagine that you saw my mail on esug-list

Stef

On Apr 15, 2010, at 8:50 PM, Juan Vuletich wrote:

Hi andreas

I think that indeed this is the only possible reaction to Apple stupidity (I'm using a mac since 92 and I feel sick).

Stef

On Apr 15, 2010, at 8:59 PM, Andreas Raab wrote:

Yes extremely sad.
I imagine that you saw my mail on esug-list.


On Apr 15, 2010, at 8:50 PM, Juan Vuletich wrote:

Not to defend Apple's hubris or anything, but John's other apps  
written in Squeak are still in the store. Scratch was not taken down  
because it is implemented in Squeak, but because it downloads code  
from the internet and runs it.

- Bert -

On 15.04.2010, at 21:20, stephane ducasse <[hidden email]>  
wrote:

Thanks for the info. But let us see because we do not know if a squeak-vm is an C or smalltalk app.

Stef

Bert Freudenberg wrote:
> Not to defend Apple's hubris or anything, but John's other apps
> written in Squeak are still in the store. Scratch was not taken down
> because it is implemented in Squeak, but because it downloads code
> from the internet and runs it.
>
> - Bert -

AH, if that is the case, then there is hope.  If you could modify things
so that only the official site could supply "content" then perhaps the
policy can be circumvented...


Lawson

On 15.04.2010, at 22:11, Lawson English wrote:
>
> Bert Freudenberg wrote:
>> Not to defend Apple's hubris or anything, but John's other apps written in Squeak are still in the store. Scratch was not taken down because it is implemented in Squeak, but because it downloads code from the internet and runs it.
>>
>> - Bert -
>
> AH, if that is the case, then there is hope.  If you could modify things so that only the official site could supply "content" then perhaps the policy can be circumvented...

Not really. Apple wants to ensure that the behavior they test is the same as the behavior the users see. So no "active content" download.

Typical apps do not download code, they are only updated when a new version gets released (and each new version is tested again by Apple).

In that sense John's other apps are fine, they are just an executable written in a mix of C and Objective-C, plus a fixed datafile we usually call "image".

- Bert -

Speaking of esug-list... I was trying to find the thread discussing  
this but don't see any browsable archives since January.  I was  
looking at http://lists.esug.org/pipermail/esug-list/

Thanks,
Phil

On Apr 15, 2010, at 3:20 PM, stephane ducasse wrote:

>>>
>> AH, if that is the case, then there is hope.  If you could modify things so that only the official site could supply "content" then perhaps the policy can be circumvented...
>
> Not really. Apple wants to ensure that the behavior they test is the same as the behavior the users see. So no "active content" download.
>
> Typical apps do not download code, they are only updated when a new version gets released (and each new version is tested again by Apple).
>
> In that sense John's other apps are fine, they are just an executable written in a mix of C and Objective-C, plus a fixed datafile we usually call "image".

This is exactly what I was wondering... What is a C application nowadays :)
Still I think that the message from apple is blurring their image.
Stef

I think it's about control of distribution channel. I bet a game from EA with downloadable content that contains Lua code will fly without a second guess from Apple's police department as long as you have to buy the downloadable content from Apple's online storefront.  

I have half a mind to restyle the Caesar browser to fit on the iPhone's screen and ship a dirt simple app that embeds it in a WebKit instance. This should meet the requirements of section 3.3.1, as JavaScript above WebKit is supposed to be legal. It would be interesting to see whether or not the app would be rejected.

On Apr 15, 2010, at 1:23 PM, Bert Freudenberg <[hidden email]> wrote:

On Apr 15, 2010, at 1:23 PM, Bert Freudenberg wrote:

That was already prohibited under the old agreement.  So you might be partly right... Scratch might have slipped through without Apple noticing that it downloads code, and once they noticed that it does, they yanked it.


> Typical apps do not download code, they are only updated when a new version gets released (and each new version is tested again by Apple).
>
> In that sense John's other apps are fine, they are just an executable written in a mix of C and Objective-C, plus a fixed datafile we usually call "image".

Yeah, and Java programs are a program written in C with fixed files called ".class" files.  If Apple's lawyers were OK with that, they wouldn't have carefully chosen the words "Applications must be originally written in Objective-C,  C,  C++,  or JavaScript".  It's an error to assume that just because John's other apps haven't been yanked *yet* that Apple's legalese doesn't mean what it plainly says.

Cheers,
Josh



>
> - Bert -
>
>
>