Skip to main content

Apple Slightly Changes Terms in Section 3.3.2 Dealing With Cross-Compiling and Use of Interpretors

The iOS 4 GM seed (gold master) released during WWDC 2010 once again made changes to Section 3.3.2 of Apple's licensing agreement -- specifically the part that deals deals with the use of cross-compilers.  The changes this time around may not make things all better, but it could make things slightly better for some developers.  Matt Drance had this to say about the change to Section 3.2.2:

"While explicit approval from Apple is still required, these new terms seem to acknowledge that there’s a difference between an app that happens to have non-compiled code, and a meta-platform. It’s a step that should allow for many new possibilities."

While this may not provide a solution to everyone, especially Adobe, it may allow some previously rejected apps into the App Store after all, and reassure others who may have been worried about using scripting engines for games, for example. 

Any developers out there have an opinion on the latest revision of 3.2.2? Is it a move in the right direction or are people over-analyzing what may or may not be between the lines here?

[Apple Outsider via Daring Fireball]

iMore senior editor from 2011 to 2015.

  • that's great news, means the platform becoming more open!!!
  • A halting, reluctant, had-to-be-dragged-kicking-and-screaming very, very itty bitty baby step in the right direction, which due to the need for explicit case by case approval cannot help but increase review times and leave the door wide open for biased judgement calls.
    But a step in the right direction nonetheless.
  • @(Copy of) Dev)
    i thought you'd be happy about that ;)
    hopefully they'll add it to the automatic private api searching process.
    although i did think that review times had got better to a few days but it looks like a week is the norm atm.
  • Review times seem to have slowed trying to get all the iOS 4 compatibility updates through. Must be a huge amount of submissions this week.
  • @zero
    I am a bit happy - I did call it a step in the right direction, after all. :)
    I just think the cheers should be muted, since it took public shaming and covert near-revolt for Apple to reverse partially a policy that was stupid to begin with.
    Don't get me wrong; I'm happy my game design cohorts can (continue to) use Lua rather than force them into the error-prone world of memory management, but that happiness is tempered by the unnecessary hoops one has to jump through. Every. Single. Time.
  • A itty bitty step in a good direction.
  • They did that because they didn't want to chase all the Mono and Unity games from the App Store.
  • At two places in the text you mention section 3.3.2, and elsewhere 3.2.2... be careful! This is an article reporting on a legal document, accuracy is of utmost importance.