[allyt]

We have something official, more official than any press release: the developer contract

We have Gruber's interpretation of a complex legal document, taken completely out of the context in which "Application" is defined. Lawyers don't get paid big bucks to interpret this stuff for nothing.

[fierarul]

They get paid to try and convince a judge or jury that their client's interpretation of the document is the correct one. You think it's a mistake the text is a bit vague and not everything properly defined ?

Legal texts aren't software; it's actually in the best interest of Apple to define things as broad and vaguely as possible so they cover a large spectrum.

I think Gruber's interpretation is one that any person reading the document will have.

[allyt]

I think Gruber's interpretation is one that any person reading the document will have.

Not necessarily. See: http://andreyf.tumblr.com/post/508678742/stop-interpreting-l...

[fierarul]

That was actually an interesting approach, but still doesn't seem logic. You can't actually develop a Flash app without using the iPhone OS so then you have to follow the C/C++/ObjC rule.

But if the author is counting on "not using the SDK" altogether then basically your whole developer agreement with Apple is void since the whole purpose was to develop "applications". And if the agreement is void there is no reason for Apple to accept your stuff on AppStore.

[allyt]

I think what he was looking for was the link between the rules Apple uses to accept/reject things from the store and the SDK agreement... but yeah, it seems to be a moot point.

[sunchild]

IAAL. Contracts only matter to the extent and in the manner that they are ENFORCED by the parties to the contract. Everything else is pure speculation and intellectual masturbation...or, in this case, pursuit of an agenda.