www.digitalmars.com         C & C++   DMDScript  

digitalmars.D - Apple disallows D-Sources

reply "Manfred_Nowak" <svv1999 hotmail.com> writes:
http://daringfireball.net/2010/04/iphone_agreement_bans_flash_compiler
-manfred
May 07 2010
next sibling parent reply "Steven Schveighoffer" <schveiguy yahoo.com> writes:
On Fri, 07 May 2010 07:14:34 -0400, Manfred_Nowak <svv1999 hotmail.com>  
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  

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.

-Steve
May 07 2010
next sibling parent reply Michel Fortin <michel.fortin michelf.com> writes:
On 2010-05-07 07:29:13 -0400, "Steven Schveighoffer" 
<schveiguy yahoo.com> said:


 On Fri, 07 May 2010 07:14:34 -0400, Manfred_Nowak <svv1999 hotmail.com>  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 

 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).

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.)

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.

-- 
Michel Fortin
michel.fortin michelf.com
http://michelf.com/
May 07 2010
next sibling parent reply bearophile <bearophileHUGS lycos.com> writes:
Michel Fortin:


 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.


Don't give any of your time or money to Apple.

Bye,
bearophile
May 07 2010
parent reply Leandro Lucarella <llucax gmail.com> writes:
bearophile, el  7 de mayo a las 08:22 me escribiste:

 Michel Fortin:
 

 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.


 
 Don't give any of your time or money to Apple.


Guess what, you are giving your time to Apple. You know Apple is hiring
all the nice people you really love making LLVM, don't you?

I really hate Apple too, but it's not all bad. So I'd say, give money and
time to Apple only where they spend it doing good stugg ;)

-- 
Leandro Lucarella (AKA luca)                     http://llucax.com.ar/
----------------------------------------------------------------------
GPG Key: 5F5A8D05 (F8CD F9A7 BF00 5431 4145  104C 949E BFB6 5F5A 8D05)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Me encanta el éxito; por eso prefiero el estado de progreso constante,
con la meta al frente y no atrás.
	-- Ricardo Vaporeso. Punta del Este, Enero de 1918.
May 07 2010
next sibling parent reply Kagamin <spam here.lot> writes:
Leandro Lucarella Wrote:


 Guess what, you are giving your time to Apple. You know Apple is hiring
 all the nice people you really love making LLVM, don't you?


That's not quite correct. LLVM is not really theirs. MS contributed to Linux,
you know?
May 07 2010
parent Leandro Lucarella <llucax gmail.com> writes:
Kagamin, el  7 de mayo a las 12:28 me escribiste:

 Leandro Lucarella Wrote:
 

 Guess what, you are giving your time to Apple. You know Apple is hiring
 all the nice people you really love making LLVM, don't you?


 
 That's not quite correct. LLVM is not really theirs. MS contributed to
 Linux, you know?


I didn't say LLVM is Apples property, but they hire some of the main
developers, if you aid that developers in doing their jobs at Apple,
I guess you are giving your time to Apple at some point.

But you have other opensource projects that are truly owned by Apple, like
CUPS, so if the LLVM case is a little controvertial for you, we can
analyze that, but it was funnier to mention the relation between Apple and
LLVM since beariphile actively helps LLVM ;)

-- 
Leandro Lucarella (AKA luca)                     http://llucax.com.ar/
----------------------------------------------------------------------
GPG Key: 5F5A8D05 (F8CD F9A7 BF00 5431 4145  104C 949E BFB6 5F5A 8D05)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
<Damian_Des> Me anDa MaL eL CaPSLoCK
May 07 2010
prev sibling parent bearophile <bearophileHUGS lycos.com> writes:
Leandro Lucarella:

 Guess what, you are giving your time to Apple. You know Apple is hiring
 all the nice people you really love making LLVM, don't you?


I know. I am making a personal exception for LLVM. Life is complex.

Bye,
bearophile
May 07 2010
prev sibling next sibling parent reply "Steven Schveighoffer" <schveiguy yahoo.com> writes:
On Fri, 07 May 2010 08:09:08 -0400, Michel Fortin  
<michel.fortin michelf.com> wrote:


 On 2010-05-07 07:29:13 -0400, "Steven Schveighoffer"  
 <schveiguy yahoo.com> said:


 On Fri, 07 May 2010 07:14:34 -0400, Manfred_Nowak  
 <svv1999 hotmail.com>  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  

 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
May 07 2010
next sibling parent reply Michel Fortin <michel.fortin michelf.com> writes:
On 2010-05-07 09:13:46 -0400, "Steven Schveighoffer" 
<schveiguy yahoo.com> said:


 On Fri, 07 May 2010 08:09:08 -0400, Michel Fortin  
 <michel.fortin michelf.com> wrote:
 

 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.


Yes you can. But they can just look at the code itself. If I was to 
take the compiled code of a few function of the D runtime and search 
for it, don't you think I'd easily identify most of the D programs out 
there?


-- 
Michel Fortin
michel.fortin michelf.com
http://michelf.com/
May 07 2010
parent reply Walter Bright <newshound1 digitalmars.com> writes:
Michel Fortin wrote:

 Yes you can. But they can just look at the code itself. If I was to take 
 the compiled code of a few function of the D runtime and search for it, 
 don't you think I'd easily identify most of the D programs out there?


It wouldn't be hard for someone familiar with Apple's code generator to look at 
a dump of a program and see that it wasn't generated by that code generator.
May 07 2010
parent BCS <none anon.com> writes:
Hello Walter,


 Michel Fortin wrote:
 

 Yes you can. But they can just look at the code itself. If I was to
 take the compiled code of a few function of the D runtime and search
 for it, don't you think I'd easily identify most of the D programs
 out there?
 


 It wouldn't be hard for someone familiar with Apple's code generator
 to look at a dump of a program and see that it wasn't generated by
 that code generator.
 


I wonder what they would do if someone wrote an app in ASM?

-- 
... <IXOYE><
May 07 2010
prev sibling parent BCS <none anon.com> writes:
Hello Steven,


 On Fri, 07 May 2010 08:09:08 -0400, Michel Fortin
 <michel.fortin michelf.com> wrote:
 

 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.
 


Nope: http://addxorrol.blogspot.com/2009/03/diffing-x86-vs-arm-code.html


-- 
... <IXOYE><
May 07 2010
prev sibling parent Walter Bright <newshound1 digitalmars.com> writes:
Michel Fortin wrote:

 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).


The uncertainty and selective enforcement is a huge problem. This would
dissuade 
any company from spending a lot of $$$ developing an app that didn't conform to 
the TOS. They wouldn't want to arbitrarily risk those $$$.

I think Apple may have overreached with this one.
May 07 2010
prev sibling parent Mike Parker <aldacron gmail.com> writes:
Steven Schveighoffer wrote:


 DMCA.  I hope Adobe challenges this as an antitrust violation.
 
 -Steve


This is being considered by the FTC and the DoJ.

http://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/05/04/goverment-weighing-possible-apple-antitrust-probe/
May 07 2010
prev sibling next sibling parent Kagamin <spam here.lot> writes:
Manfred_Nowak Wrote:


 http://daringfireball.net/2010/04/iphone_agreement_bans_flash_compiler
 -manfred


Oh, they can afford it.
May 07 2010
prev sibling parent "Nick Sabalausky" <a a.a> writes:
"Manfred_Nowak" <svv1999 hotmail.com> wrote in message 
news:Xns9D7186B8ABBF1svv1999hotmailcom 65.204.18.192...

 http://daringfireball.net/2010/04/iphone_agreement_bans_flash_compiler
 -manfred


I came across that the other day, and frankly, I wasn't the least bit 
surprised. Apple has always been a company that makes MS look like the FSF, 
and the iPhone has already been proof of that from day one. It's just that 
most people don't notice what kind of company Apple is because Apple users 
generally make up only a small (but irritatingly vocal) minority of people, 
and it's mostly just the religious Apple zealots who use Apple stuff (and 
they're certainly not going to notice Apple's problems), plus most people 
these days are consumer whores anyway.

Anyway, that's why I've never even been willing to consider developing 
anything for the iPhone. Can't say I feel bad for developers that get hurt 
by this, either. If they can't see Apple for what they are, or just don't 
care, then of course they're going to get bitten. Fact of life.

More iFascism:

AppStore-related: http://www.paulgraham.com/apple.html

http://www.appletell.com/apple/comment/apple-issues-cease-and-desist-for-itunes-database-analysis/

http://www.itnetcentral.com/tech/alternative-guis-windows-xp-44.html


Not so much iFascism as iIneptitude:

http://arstechnica.com/apple/news/2010/04/ipad-fails-networking-101-how-to-earn-it-a-passing-grade.ars

-------------------------------
Sent from my PC while pretending that people care what it's sent from.
May 07 2010