From: Christiaan H. <cmh...@gm...> - 2012-01-21 11:19:50
|
On Jan 21, 2012, at 2:11, Adam R. Maxwell wrote: > > On Jan 20, 2012, at 14:02 , Christiaan Hofman wrote: > >> Indeed, the BSD license is pretty permissive. However, it has an acknowledgement clause for reuse, namely inclusion of the original copyright: >> >> Redistributions in binary form must reproduce the above copyright >> notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer in >> the documentation and/or other materials provided with the >> distribution. >> >> However, there's no acknowledgement whatsoever in their about box. So I think they're in violation, though IANAL either. > > Then I also believe that's a violation, but I wasn't willing to drop $30 just to check it out last night! Me neither. But as they made it free, I had a look. > Since Mike's name is on the license and the rest of us are "contributors," I'd guess he's the one to take it up with Apple WWDR. > Agreed. >> But it is certainly not very nice behavior. >> >> the other thing of course is the App Store requirements. I am not sure what they are, but do they allow non-original apps? Though I do think Skim doesn't comply with certain App Store requirements (and this app as well.) > > Since I never paid to develop for the App Store, I don't know the requirements. NSTask and any Apple SPI usage are off limits, though, from what I've read. Doesn't the remote control thing use SPI? > > -- > Adam > I found this copy for iOS <http://stadium.weblogsinc.com/engadget/files/app-store-guidelines.pdf> that also indicates these restrictions. And we (and they) are definitely using NSTask (for dvi, archive/diskimage saving, backward synctex) and Apple SPI in various places (various system bugfixes, accessibility, applescript support for selection, printing pre Lion). I don't think the remote stuff uses SPI, but it has reverse-engineered codes and service names, not sure whether that qualifies as SPI. Christiaan |