Apple disallows D-Sources

[Steven Schveighoffer]

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

> On 2010-05-07 07:29:13 -0400, "Steven Schveighoffer"  
> <schveiguy at yahoo.com> said:
>
>> On Fri, 07 May 2010 07:14:34 -0400, Manfred_Nowak  
>> <svv1999 at 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  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