I don't think this licensing issue will be a problem for us. It's not clear to me that our game violates this new term, and we certainly don't violate any of the principles Steve Jobs used to justify it. If Apple wants to reject our app, they already have a variety of excuses at their disposal, as they've demonstrated on many occasions. Frankly, it'd be their loss; Android is now the fastest-growing smartphone market, and we'll be more than happy to focus on it (and other friendlier markets) if Apple's not interested in having our product on their platform.

On Wed, May 26, 2010 at 4:18 AM, Brandon S. Allbery KF8NH <allbery@ece.cmu.edu> wrote:

On May 26, 2010, at 04:14 , David Virebayre wrote:

On Wed, May 26, 2010 at 9:58 AM, Brandon S. Allbery KF8NH
<allbery@ece.cmu.edu> wrote:

You might want to reread that license agreement. Specifically:

Ah, yes. Ouch, that's abusive.
Can they tell the difference though ?

I suspect GHC-generated code is fairly distinctive even as machine code. But they don't have to go to that extent; all they have to do is use Google to find this thread. :(

--
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