4 ms·

Read again -- it says you must write the application, originally, in Objective-C, C, C++, or JavaScript.

by tumult 17y ago

aufreak3 17y ago
But if the compiler generates "readable code", there is no way to counter my claim that I "wrote" my program in Objective-C. If that is indeed Apple's instruction and what developers need to abide by, lets lobby the processor manufacturers to mandate that apps for their processor must be "written" in their assembly.
- tumult 17y ago
  There is probably no good technical way for them to counter your claim that you wrote it, but you would be lying, and you agreed to their contract+license which says you won't do it.
  - aufreak3 17y ago
    I absolutely don't think I'm lying when I say "I wrote program B" (from my second argument). It hinges on what "write" means. It no longer means "put pen to paper". If that's true, then nobody "writes" software any more and all developers are liars when they say "they write code". Then what does it mean? "Create" is closer to it. Also if "you" as a company hire someone to "write" an iPhone app which you submit to Apple, then technically you didn't "write" it either. Any physical interpretation of "write" doesn't work. Even if they changed it to "type", I can generate program B and literally retype it into the computer to satisfy the legality. In simpler words, the requirement seems just plain stupid and invalid to me. Fire the lawyers who "wrote" that :)
    - barrkel 17y ago
      I believe the appropriate term that would come into a proper definition would involve mechanical translation. Those parts that are input into a process of mechanical translation, but are not themselves a product of mechanical translation but rather in substance the product of human agency, are original source files. But the contract term as it currently reads certainly seems sloppy.
      - aufreak3 17y ago
        Not sure if even your "mechanical translation" condition works, though certainly tighter. What if I hire a human to do the translation? If even that would violate the agreement, then the "original written language" of every program is the plain language specification document (that is, if you write one). Heck, XCode has project templates that "write" starter code for you. So, technically, no iPhone developer "wrote" every single line of copyrighted code. .. and (someone else mentioned) copy pasted public domain code, apps ported from other platforms, are all ruled out. Basically, it seems that this clause reeks of a lack of understanding of the nature of software.
    - deleted 17y ago
      [deleted]
  - wallflower 17y ago
    If push came to shove, I think giving them access to your github repository and its commit history would prove things.
    - natrius 17y ago
      "Nice github repository. It looks like you were right. That's nice. Your app has been rejected anyway. Because we feel like it."
aufreak3 17y ago
Another argument against the validity of that requirement - if I write a program A that writes another program B, can I not claim copyright for program B? If not, then an artist using Adobe Photoshop cannot claim copyright for their PDF images because PDF is a "program" that their work generated that is "executed" by the Postscript runtime. (In that case, they didn't even write Photoshop to start with.) So if program B's copyright is mine, then, legally, I "wrote" it.
- natrius 17y ago
  Copyright law has nothing to do with this requirement. If Apple thinks you originally wrote your program in another language, they'll remove it from the App Store. If you sue them for this action, you'll have to prove that Apple somehow broke their agreement with you. At the minimum, you'd have to prove that you wrote the [Objective] C[++] code yourself. My understanding is that the agreement allows Apple to reject apps for any reason they want, so even if you manage to convince a judge of the pure pedigree of your code, you've gained nothing. The moral of the story is, "Don't work with assholes when it can be avoided."
  - aufreak3 17y ago
    Copyright law looks like the only reference point for defining "write" - if you own copyright for something, you "wrote" it, otherwise you legally didn't (even if you claim otherwise). It might have been much simpler if Apple just said "all applications should be products of the iPhone SDK tools". Anyway, it all depends on what exactly they want to accomplish with this clause and it is poorly worded at the moment for whatever that purpose be. Hope Apple clarifies soon.

Read again -- it says you must write the application, originally, in Objective-C, C, C++, or JavaScript.

by tumult 17y ago

Read again -- it says you must write the application, originally, in Objective-C, C, C++, or JavaScript.

But if the compiler generates "readable code", there is no way to counter my claim that I "wrote" my program in Objective-C. If that is indeed Apple's instruction and what developers need to abide by, lets lobby the processor manufacturers to mandate that apps for their processor must be "written" in their assembly.

tumult 17y ago
There is probably no good technical way for them to counter your claim that you wrote it, but you would be lying, and you agreed to their contract+license which says you won't do it.
- aufreak3 17y ago
  I absolutely don't think I'm lying when I say "I wrote program B" (from my second argument). It hinges on what "write" means. It no longer means "put pen to paper". If that's true, then nobody "writes" software any more and all developers are liars when they say "they write code". Then what does it mean? "Create" is closer to it. Also if "you" as a company hire someone to "write" an iPhone app which you submit to Apple, then technically you didn't "write" it either. Any physical interpretation of "write" doesn't work. Even if they changed it to "type", I can generate program B and literally retype it into the computer to satisfy the legality. In simpler words, the requirement seems just plain stupid and invalid to me. Fire the lawyers who "wrote" that :)
  - barrkel 17y ago
    I believe the appropriate term that would come into a proper definition would involve mechanical translation. Those parts that are input into a process of mechanical translation, but are not themselves a product of mechanical translation but rather in substance the product of human agency, are original source files. But the contract term as it currently reads certainly seems sloppy.
    - aufreak3 17y ago
      Not sure if even your "mechanical translation" condition works, though certainly tighter. What if I hire a human to do the translation? If even that would violate the agreement, then the "original written language" of every program is the plain language specification document (that is, if you write one). Heck, XCode has project templates that "write" starter code for you. So, technically, no iPhone developer "wrote" every single line of copyrighted code. .. and (someone else mentioned) copy pasted public domain code, apps ported from other platforms, are all ruled out. Basically, it seems that this clause reeks of a lack of understanding of the nature of software.
  - deleted 17y ago
    [deleted]
- wallflower 17y ago
  If push came to shove, I think giving them access to your github repository and its commit history would prove things.
  - natrius 17y ago
    "Nice github repository. It looks like you were right. That's nice. Your app has been rejected anyway. Because we feel like it."

aufreak3 17y ago

Another argument against the validity of that requirement - if I write a program A that writes another program B, can I not claim copyright for program B? If not, then an artist using Adobe Photoshop cannot claim copyright for their PDF images because PDF is a "program" that their work generated that is "executed" by the Postscript runtime. (In that case, they didn't even write Photoshop to start with.) So if program B's copyright is mine, then, legally, I "wrote" it.

natrius 17y ago
Copyright law has nothing to do with this requirement. If Apple thinks you originally wrote your program in another language, they'll remove it from the App Store. If you sue them for this action, you'll have to prove that Apple somehow broke their agreement with you. At the minimum, you'd have to prove that you wrote the [Objective] C[++] code yourself. My understanding is that the agreement allows Apple to reject apps for any reason they want, so even if you manage to convince a judge of the pure pedigree of your code, you've gained nothing. The moral of the story is, "Don't work with assholes when it can be avoided."
- aufreak3 17y ago
  Copyright law looks like the only reference point for defining "write" - if you own copyright for something, you "wrote" it, otherwise you legally didn't (even if you claim otherwise). It might have been much simpler if Apple just said "all applications should be products of the iPhone SDK tools". Anyway, it all depends on what exactly they want to accomplish with this clause and it is poorly worded at the moment for whatever that purpose be. Hope Apple clarifies soon.