3 ms·

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 pap

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]

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]