5 ms·
I don't see what's so bad about excluding Apple in the license. I mean, they're not really playing nice here. Perhaps unintentionally so, but if that's how they
by badman_ting 13y ago
I don't see what's so bad about excluding Apple in the license. I mean, they're not really playing nice here. Perhaps unintentionally so, but if that's how they want to carry it then they can write their own thing for the Photo framework.
- mwfunk 13y agoPlease explain how they're not being nice here.
- kennywinker 13y agoEffectively banning a commonly used tool from the app store because they use it internally. It's a bit of an "I'm taking your ball and going home" kind of a situation.
- deleted 13y ago[deleted]
- gress 13y agoThey aren't banning it because they use it internally. They aren't banning it at all. This is an accident.
- bigiain 13y agoSo they "accidentally" took this guy's ball and went home. Which has resulted in an effective "automated banning" of the guy's tool. I'm half inclined to suggest that publicly outing that kind of behaviour on your own blog is _exactly_ the right response to that sort of "accident". When their "accident" has some quite serious consequences for everybody except the people who carelessly allowed the accident to happen, and when the people who need to fix the "accident" are hidden behind Apple's legendarily un-approachable app store review process - "public shaming" seems like an entirely appropriate reaction.
- gress 13y agoAre you seriously saying they did this on purpose?
- Dylan16807 13y agoNegligently, not on purpose, but not 'truly' an accident.
- gress 13y agoThis is clearly not negligence. It's an exotic scenario.