it seems silly for a company like Apple to take a definite position on exactly what “originally written” and “intermediary translation” means irregardless of o

it seems silly for a company like Apple to take a definite position on exactly what “originally written” and “intermediary translation” means irregardless of one's opinion about section 3.3.1, there's actually nothing silly at all about apple taking a stance on the interpretation of a legal term. definitions are what makes law and legal agreements work, and you can define things however you please---the important thing is making yourself understood. obviously apple does not intend to outlaw thinking before coding. therefore they have implicitly defined their terms accordingly.