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 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