Of course, given that they have no way of determining that short of asking for the source code (and hiring another thousand reviewers to read it) or applying static analysis tools with heuristics to the programs. I really doubt they do the latter, and the former is unrealistic.

Most people seem to think the clause is there mostly to discourage large companies like Adobe from making generic tools to translate to the iPhone/iPad. It would be a lot of effort for Apple to actually enforce it strictly.

On Wed, May 26, 2010 at 3:58 AM, Brandon S. Allbery KF8NH <allbery@ece.cmu.edu> wrote:
On May 26, 2010, at 03:50 , David Virebayre wrote:
On Wed, May 26, 2010 at 9:23 AM, Lyndon Maydwell <maydwell@gmail.com> wrote:
As a side note, how is this project getting around the language
restrictions apple put in the developer license agreement?

>From the project page :

This version uses Apple's official iPhone SDK as its back end compiler.

You might want to reread that license agreement.  Specifically:


"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)"

--
brandon s. allbery [solaris,freebsd,perl,pugs,haskell] allbery@kf8nh.com
system administrator [openafs,heimdal,too many hats] allbery@ece.cmu.edu
electrical and computer engineering, carnegie mellon university    KF8NH



_______________________________________________
Haskell-Cafe mailing list
Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org
http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe