Is there concern regarding the new language in the 4.0 license agreement with regards to the use of PhoneGap?
"Applications must be originally written in Objective-C, C, C++, or JavaScript as executed by the iPhone OS WebKit engine, and only code written in C, C++, and Objective-C may compile and directly link against the Documented APIs (e.g., Applications that link to Documented APIs through an intermediary translation or compatibility layer or tool are prohibited)."
I have thought about this prior to posting this email because we are using javascript and calling Objective-C to handle the various iPhone SDK API, but could Apple see this process flow as a "intermediary translation or compatibility layer or tool". I can see both sides, but am curious to know if anyone at Nitobi has discussed the 4.0 license agreement and its implications, if any, to PhoneGap.
I would assume that phonegap is in good standing, as nothing is necessarily proprietary like the Adobe Air app (enabler?/player?). JavaScript, HTML, and CSS are not proprietary, and don't link to "documented APIs" as the language implies. I agree though, it's easy to see both sides of the argument. Is it really all speculation until the release of the SDK, or even till the first submission after?
On Apr 10, 8:47 pm, John Britton <jab...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Is there concern regarding the new language in the 4.0 license agreement > with regards to the use of PhoneGap?
> "Applications must be originally written in Objective-C, C, C++, or > JavaScript as executed by the iPhone OS WebKit engine, and only code written > in C, C++, and Objective-C may compile and directly link against the > Documented APIs (e.g., Applications that link to Documented APIs through an > intermediary translation or compatibility layer or tool are prohibited)."
> I have thought about this prior to posting this email because we are using > javascript and calling Objective-C to handle the various iPhone SDK API, but > could Apple see this process flow as a "intermediary translation or > compatibility layer or tool". I can see both sides, but am curious to know > if anyone at Nitobi has discussed the 4.0 license agreement and its > implications, if any, to PhoneGap.
On Sun, Apr 11, 2010 at 12:27 AM, Kirk Strobeck <k...@strobeck.com> wrote: > I would assume that phonegap is in good standing, as nothing is > necessarily proprietary like the Adobe Air app (enabler?/player?). > JavaScript, HTML, and CSS are not proprietary, and don't link to > "documented APIs" as the language implies. I agree though, it's easy > to see both sides of the argument. Is it really all speculation until > the release of the SDK, or even till the first submission after?
> On Apr 10, 8:47 pm, John Britton <jab...@gmail.com> wrote: > > Is there concern regarding the new language in the 4.0 license agreement > > with regards to the use of PhoneGap?
> > "Applications must be originally written in Objective-C, C, C++, or > > JavaScript as executed by the iPhone OS WebKit engine, and only code > written > > in C, C++, and Objective-C may compile and directly link against the > > Documented APIs (e.g., Applications that link to Documented APIs through > an > > intermediary translation or compatibility layer or tool are prohibited)."
> > I have thought about this prior to posting this email because we are > using > > javascript and calling Objective-C to handle the various iPhone SDK API, > but > > could Apple see this process flow as a "intermediary translation or > > compatibility layer or tool". I can see both sides, but am curious to > know > > if anyone at Nitobi has discussed the 4.0 license agreement and its > > implications, if any, to PhoneGap.
> > Thanks,
> > John
> -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google > Groups "phonegap" group. > To post to this group, send email to phonegap@googlegroups.com > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > phonegap+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com<phonegap%2Bunsubscribe@googlegroups.c om> > For more options, visit this group at > http://groups.google.com/group/phonegap?hl=en?hl=en
> For more info on PhoneGap or to download the code go to www.phonegap.com
> To unsubscribe, reply using "remove me" as the subject.
> On Sun, Apr 11, 2010 at 12:27 AM, Kirk Strobeck <k...@strobeck.com> wrote:
>> I would assume that phonegap is in good standing, as nothing is >> necessarily proprietary like the Adobe Air app (enabler?/player?). >> JavaScript, HTML, and CSS are not proprietary, and don't link to >> "documented APIs" as the language implies. I agree though, it's easy >> to see both sides of the argument. Is it really all speculation until >> the release of the SDK, or even till the first submission after?
>> On Apr 10, 8:47 pm, John Britton <jab...@gmail.com> wrote: >> > Is there concern regarding the new language in the 4.0 license agreement >> > with regards to the use of PhoneGap?
>> > "Applications must be originally written in Objective-C, C, C++, or >> > JavaScript as executed by the iPhone OS WebKit engine, and only code >> written >> > in C, C++, and Objective-C may compile and directly link against the >> > Documented APIs (e.g., Applications that link to Documented APIs through >> an >> > intermediary translation or compatibility layer or tool are >> prohibited)."
>> > I have thought about this prior to posting this email because we are >> using >> > javascript and calling Objective-C to handle the various iPhone SDK API, >> but >> > could Apple see this process flow as a "intermediary translation or >> > compatibility layer or tool". I can see both sides, but am curious to >> know >> > if anyone at Nitobi has discussed the 4.0 license agreement and its >> > implications, if any, to PhoneGap.
>> > Thanks,
>> > John
>> -- >> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google >> Groups "phonegap" group. >> To post to this group, send email to phonegap@googlegroups.com >> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to >> phonegap+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com<phonegap%2Bunsubscribe@googlegroups.c om> >> For more options, visit this group at >> http://groups.google.com/group/phonegap?hl=en?hl=en
>> For more info on PhoneGap or to download the code go to www.phonegap.com
>> To unsubscribe, reply using "remove me" as the subject.
> -- > Vivian Aranha
> -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google > Groups "phonegap" group. > To post to this group, send email to phonegap@googlegroups.com > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > phonegap+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com<phonegap%2Bunsubscribe@googlegroups.c om> > For more options, visit this group at > http://groups.google.com/group/phonegap?hl=en?hl=en
> For more info on PhoneGap or to download the code go to www.phonegap.com
> > On Sun, Apr 11, 2010 at 12:27 AM, Kirk Strobeck <k...@strobeck.com> wrote:
> >> I would assume that phonegap is in good standing, as nothing is > >> necessarily proprietary like the Adobe Air app (enabler?/player?). > >> JavaScript, HTML, and CSS are not proprietary, and don't link to > >> "documented APIs" as the language implies. I agree though, it's easy > >> to see both sides of the argument. Is it really all speculation until > >> the release of the SDK, or even till the first submission after?
> >> On Apr 10, 8:47 pm, John Britton <jab...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> > Is there concern regarding the new language in the 4.0 license agreement > >> > with regards to the use of PhoneGap?
> >> > "Applications must be originally written in Objective-C, C, C++, or > >> > JavaScript as executed by the iPhone OS WebKit engine, and only code > >> written > >> > in C, C++, and Objective-C may compile and directly link against the > >> > Documented APIs (e.g., Applications that link to Documented APIs through > >> an > >> > intermediary translation or compatibility layer or tool are > >> prohibited)."
> >> > I have thought about this prior to posting this email because we are > >> using > >> > javascript and calling Objective-C to handle the various iPhone SDK API, > >> but > >> > could Apple see this process flow as a "intermediary translation or > >> > compatibility layer or tool". I can see both sides, but am curious to > >> know > >> > if anyone at Nitobi has discussed the 4.0 license agreement and its > >> > implications, if any, to PhoneGap.
> >> > Thanks,
> >> > John
> >> -- > >> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google > >> Groups "phonegap" group. > >> To post to this group, send email to phonegap@googlegroups.com > >> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > >> phonegap+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com<phonegap%2Bunsubscr...@googlegroups.c om> > >> For more options, visit this group at > >>http://groups.google.com/group/phonegap?hl=en?hl=en
> >> For more info on PhoneGap or to download the code go towww.phonegap.com
> >> To unsubscribe, reply using "remove me" as the subject.
> > -- > > Vivian Aranha
> > -- > > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google > > Groups "phonegap" group. > > To post to this group, send email to phonegap@googlegroups.com > > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > > phonegap+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com<phonegap%2Bunsubscr...@googlegroups.c om> > > For more options, visit this group at > >http://groups.google.com/group/phonegap?hl=en?hl=en
> > For more info on PhoneGap or to download the code go towww.phonegap.com
I really hope everyone here is right. PhoneGap was the first thing that came to mind when I read about this new tos.
Even though it's not a cross compiler option it still strays away from what Jobs seemed to be saying in the keynote. I wish the dude could just chill out a bit on all this.
Has anyone been able to examine how iAd works? From what I've been reading it appears to mimic PhoneGap/jQtouch somewhat... Maybe I'm wrong though.
-Jason
On Apr 11, 8:01 am, saumya <2saumya...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > On Sun, Apr 11, 2010 at 12:27 AM, Kirk Strobeck <k...@strobeck.com> wrote:
> > >> I would assume that phonegap is in good standing, as nothing is > > >> necessarily proprietary like the Adobe Air app (enabler?/player?). > > >> JavaScript, HTML, and CSS are not proprietary, and don't link to > > >> "documented APIs" as the language implies. I agree though, it's easy > > >> to see both sides of the argument. Is it really all speculation until > > >> the release of the SDK, or even till the first submission after?
> > >> On Apr 10, 8:47 pm, John Britton <jab...@gmail.com> wrote: > > >> > Is there concern regarding the new language in the 4.0 license agreement > > >> > with regards to the use of PhoneGap?
> > >> > "Applications must be originally written in Objective-C, C, C++, or > > >> > JavaScript as executed by the iPhone OS WebKit engine, and only code > > >> written > > >> > in C, C++, and Objective-C may compile and directly link against the > > >> > Documented APIs (e.g., Applications that link to Documented APIs through > > >> an > > >> > intermediary translation or compatibility layer or tool are > > >> prohibited)."
> > >> > I have thought about this prior to posting this email because we are > > >> using > > >> > javascript and calling Objective-C to handle the various iPhone SDK API, > > >> but > > >> > could Apple see this process flow as a "intermediary translation or > > >> > compatibility layer or tool". I can see both sides, but am curious to > > >> know > > >> > if anyone at Nitobi has discussed the 4.0 license agreement and its > > >> > implications, if any, to PhoneGap.
> > >> > Thanks,
> > >> > John
> > >> -- > > >> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google > > >> Groups "phonegap" group. > > >> To post to this group, send email to phonegap@googlegroups.com > > >> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > > >> phonegap+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com<phonegap%2Bunsubscr...@googlegroups.c om> > > >> For more options, visit this group at > > >>http://groups.google.com/group/phonegap?hl=en?hl=en
> > >> For more info on PhoneGap or to download the code go towww.phonegap.com
> > >> To unsubscribe, reply using "remove me" as the subject.
> > > -- > > > Vivian Aranha
> > > -- > > > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google > > > Groups "phonegap" group. > > > To post to this group, send email to phonegap@googlegroups.com > > > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > > > phonegap+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com<phonegap%2Bunsubscr...@googlegroups.c om> > > > For more options, visit this group at > > >http://groups.google.com/group/phonegap?hl=en?hl=en
> > > For more info on PhoneGap or to download the code go towww.phonegap.com
On Sun, Apr 11, 2010 at 3:21 PM, Jason72 <jason.mouss...@gmail.com> wrote: > I really hope everyone here is right. PhoneGap was the first thing > that came to mind when I read about this new tos.
> Even though it's not a cross compiler option it still strays away from > what Jobs seemed to be saying in the keynote. I wish the dude could > just chill out a bit on all this.
> Has anyone been able to examine how iAd works? From what I've been > reading it appears to mimic PhoneGap/jQtouch somewhat... Maybe I'm > wrong though.
> -Jason
> On Apr 11, 8:01 am, saumya <2saumya...@gmail.com> wrote: > > I also hope, Phonegap should be in good position. > > saumya
> > > > On Sun, Apr 11, 2010 at 12:27 AM, Kirk Strobeck <k...@strobeck.com> > wrote:
> > > >> I would assume that phonegap is in good standing, as nothing is > > > >> necessarily proprietary like the Adobe Air app (enabler?/player?). > > > >> JavaScript, HTML, and CSS are not proprietary, and don't link to > > > >> "documented APIs" as the language implies. I agree though, it's easy > > > >> to see both sides of the argument. Is it really all speculation > until > > > >> the release of the SDK, or even till the first submission after?
> > > >> On Apr 10, 8:47 pm, John Britton <jab...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > >> > Is there concern regarding the new language in the 4.0 license > agreement > > > >> > with regards to the use of PhoneGap?
> > > >> > "Applications must be originally written in Objective-C, C, C++, > or > > > >> > JavaScript as executed by the iPhone OS WebKit engine, and only > code > > > >> written > > > >> > in C, C++, and Objective-C may compile and directly link against > the > > > >> > Documented APIs (e.g., Applications that link to Documented APIs > through > > > >> an > > > >> > intermediary translation or compatibility layer or tool are > > > >> prohibited)."
> > > >> > I have thought about this prior to posting this email because we > are > > > >> using > > > >> > javascript and calling Objective-C to handle the various iPhone > SDK API, > > > >> but > > > >> > could Apple see this process flow as a "intermediary translation > or > > > >> > compatibility layer or tool". I can see both sides, but am > curious to > > > >> know > > > >> > if anyone at Nitobi has discussed the 4.0 license agreement and > its > > > >> > implications, if any, to PhoneGap.
> > > >> > Thanks,
> > > >> > John
> > > >> -- > > > >> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google > > > >> Groups "phonegap" group. > > > >> To post to this group, send email to phonegap@googlegroups.com > > > >> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > > > >> phonegap+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com<phonegap%2Bunsubscribe@googlegroups.c om> > <phonegap%2Bunsubscr...@googlegroups.c om> > > > >> For more options, visit this group at > > > >>http://groups.google.com/group/phonegap?hl=en?hl=en
> > > >> For more info on PhoneGap or to download the code go > towww.phonegap.com
> > > >> To unsubscribe, reply using "remove me" as the subject.
> > > > -- > > > > Vivian Aranha
> > > > -- > > > > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google > > > > Groups "phonegap" group. > > > > To post to this group, send email to phonegap@googlegroups.com > > > > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > > > > phonegap+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com<phonegap%2Bunsubscribe@googlegroups.c om> > <phonegap%2Bunsubscr...@googlegroups.c om> > > > > For more options, visit this group at > > > >http://groups.google.com/group/phonegap?hl=en?hl=en
> > > > For more info on PhoneGap or to download the code go > towww.phonegap.com
> -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google > Groups "phonegap" group. > To post to this group, send email to phonegap@googlegroups.com > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > phonegap+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com<phonegap%2Bunsubscribe@googlegroups.c om> > For more options, visit this group at > http://groups.google.com/group/phonegap?hl=en?hl=en
> For more info on PhoneGap or to download the code go to www.phonegap.com
I don't think that conclusively proves that Apple will not in the future start rejecting Phonegap apps because they decide to assert that the apps violate the new agreement. It's the classic black swan situation. Just because you've never seen a black swan doesn't mean they don't exist.
I'd like formal word from Apple on the matter. Nitobi asserted that phonegap was ok via a twitter post, but I'd like to see what communication caused that tweet to go out.
I'm particularly worried about what they could start asserting "compatibility layer" means. Under one interpretation, phonegap uses javascript/css/html5 as a "compatibility layer" to objective-C.
Nitobi, can you forward the communication that you got from Apple that said phonegap was ok under the new licensing agreement?
> On Sun, Apr 11, 2010 at 3:21 PM, Jason72 <jason.mouss...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> I really hope everyone here is right. PhoneGap was the first thing >> that came to mind when I read about this new tos.
>> Even though it's not a cross compiler option it still strays away from >> what Jobs seemed to be saying in the keynote. I wish the dude could >> just chill out a bit on all this.
>> Has anyone been able to examine how iAd works? From what I've been >> reading it appears to mimic PhoneGap/jQtouch somewhat... Maybe I'm >> wrong though.
>> -Jason
>> On Apr 11, 8:01 am, saumya <2saumya...@gmail.com> wrote: >> > I also hope, Phonegap should be in good position. >> > saumya
>> > > > On Sun, Apr 11, 2010 at 12:27 AM, Kirk Strobeck <k...@strobeck.com> >> > > > wrote:
>> > > >> I would assume that phonegap is in good standing, as nothing is >> > > >> necessarily proprietary like the Adobe Air app (enabler?/player?). >> > > >> JavaScript, HTML, and CSS are not proprietary, and don't link to >> > > >> "documented APIs" as the language implies. I agree though, it's >> > > >> easy >> > > >> to see both sides of the argument. Is it really all speculation >> > > >> until >> > > >> the release of the SDK, or even till the first submission after?
>> > > >> On Apr 10, 8:47 pm, John Britton <jab...@gmail.com> wrote: >> > > >> > Is there concern regarding the new language in the 4.0 license >> > > >> > agreement >> > > >> > with regards to the use of PhoneGap?
>> > > >> > "Applications must be originally written in Objective-C, C, C++, >> > > >> > or >> > > >> > JavaScript as executed by the iPhone OS WebKit engine, and only >> > > >> > code >> > > >> written >> > > >> > in C, C++, and Objective-C may compile and directly link against >> > > >> > the >> > > >> > Documented APIs (e.g., Applications that link to Documented APIs >> > > >> > through >> > > >> an >> > > >> > intermediary translation or compatibility layer or tool are >> > > >> prohibited)."
>> > > >> > I have thought about this prior to posting this email because we >> > > >> > are >> > > >> using >> > > >> > javascript and calling Objective-C to handle the various iPhone >> > > >> > SDK API, >> > > >> but >> > > >> > could Apple see this process flow as a "intermediary translation >> > > >> > or >> > > >> > compatibility layer or tool". I can see both sides, but am >> > > >> > curious to >> > > >> know >> > > >> > if anyone at Nitobi has discussed the 4.0 license agreement and >> > > >> > its >> > > >> > implications, if any, to PhoneGap.
>> > > >> > Thanks,
>> > > >> > John
>> > > >> -- >> > > >> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google >> > > >> Groups "phonegap" group. >> > > >> To post to this group, send email to phonegap@googlegroups.com >> > > >> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
>> > > >> For more info on PhoneGap or to download the code go >> > > >> towww.phonegap.com
>> > > >> To unsubscribe, reply using "remove me" as the subject.
>> > > > -- >> > > > Vivian Aranha
>> > > > -- >> > > > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google >> > > > Groups "phonegap" group. >> > > > To post to this group, send email to phonegap@googlegroups.com >> > > > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
>> > > > For more info on PhoneGap or to download the code go >> > > > towww.phonegap.com
>> -- >> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google >> Groups "phonegap" group. >> To post to this group, send email to phonegap@googlegroups.com >> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to >> phonegap+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com >> For more options, visit this group at >> http://groups.google.com/group/phonegap?hl=en?hl=en
>> For more info on PhoneGap or to download the code go to www.phonegap.com
> -- > Vivian Aranha
> -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google > Groups "phonegap" group. > To post to this group, send email to phonegap@googlegroups.com > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > phonegap+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com > For more options, visit this group at > http://groups.google.com/group/phonegap?hl=en?hl=en
> For more info on PhoneGap or to download the code go to www.phonegap.com
I think it is a little deeper than that. Dashcode developed apps seem safe under 3.3.1. As it uses only the api available via webkit.
Nitobi and the community have extended the javascript layer to access any apin approved or not.
Strict reading of 3.3.1 would indicate that phoneGap and Titanium and the others all extend the basic webkit offering.
I too would like to understand why Nitobi feels comfortable.
Vivian,
I am happy for you that you have recently released an app using javascript and phonegap. Please understand the issues are not about what you or anyone has done today. Please be respectful of this particular thread. If you don't understand why, please copy me privately or submit a new thread promoting your new app.
-----Original Message-----
From: David Orchard <orch...@pacificspirit.com>
Date: Sun, 11 Apr 2010 15:27:09 To: Vivian Aranha<vivianara...@gmail.com>
Cc: Jason72<jason.mouss...@gmail.com>; phonegap<phonegap@googlegroups.com>
Subject: Re: [PhoneGap] Re: Question about Apple 4.0 iPhone SDK license agreement
I don't think that conclusively proves that Apple will not in the
future start rejecting Phonegap apps because they decide to assert
that the apps violate the new agreement. It's the classic black swan
situation. Just because you've never seen a black swan doesn't mean
they don't exist.
I'd like formal word from Apple on the matter. Nitobi asserted that
phonegap was ok via a twitter post, but I'd like to see what
communication caused that tweet to go out.
I'm particularly worried about what they could start asserting
"compatibility layer" means. Under one interpretation, phonegap uses
javascript/css/html5 as a "compatibility layer" to objective-C.
Nitobi, can you forward the communication that you got from Apple that
said phonegap was ok under the new licensing agreement?
Dave
On Sun, Apr 11, 2010 at 3:20 PM, Vivian Aranha <vivianara...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi
> I used javascript and html for my application which got approved today.
> I opened a webview and called a www folder same structure as Phonegap
> On Sun, Apr 11, 2010 at 3:21 PM, Jason72 <jason.mouss...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> I really hope everyone here is right. PhoneGap was the first thing
>> that came to mind when I read about this new tos.
>> Even though it's not a cross compiler option it still strays away from
>> what Jobs seemed to be saying in the keynote. I wish the dude could
>> just chill out a bit on all this.
>> Has anyone been able to examine how iAd works? From what I've been
>> reading it appears to mimic PhoneGap/jQtouch somewhat... Maybe I'm
>> wrong though.
>> -Jason
>> On Apr 11, 8:01 am, saumya <2saumya...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > I also hope, Phonegap should be in good position.
>> > saumya
>> > > > On Sun, Apr 11, 2010 at 12:27 AM, Kirk Strobeck <k...@strobeck.com>
>> > > > wrote:
>> > > >> I would assume that phonegap is in good standing, as nothing is
>> > > >> necessarily proprietary like the Adobe Air app (enabler?/player?).
>> > > >> JavaScript, HTML, and CSS are not proprietary, and don't link to
>> > > >> "documented APIs" as the language implies. I agree though, it's
>> > > >> easy
>> > > >> to see both sides of the argument. Is it really all speculation
>> > > >> until
>> > > >> the release of the SDK, or even till the first submission after?
>> > > >> On Apr 10, 8:47 pm, John Britton <jab...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > > >> > Is there concern regarding the new language in the 4.0 license
>> > > >> > agreement
>> > > >> > with regards to the use of PhoneGap?
>> > > >> > "Applications must be originally written in Objective-C, C, C++,
>> > > >> > or
>> > > >> > JavaScript as executed by the iPhone OS WebKit engine, and only
>> > > >> > code
>> > > >> written
>> > > >> > in C, C++, and Objective-C may compile and directly link against
>> > > >> > the
>> > > >> > Documented APIs (e.g., Applications that link to Documented APIs
>> > > >> > through
>> > > >> an
>> > > >> > intermediary translation or compatibility layer or tool are
>> > > >> prohibited)."
>> > > >> > I have thought about this prior to posting this email because we
>> > > >> > are
>> > > >> using
>> > > >> > javascript and calling Objective-C to handle the various iPhone
>> > > >> > SDK API,
>> > > >> but
>> > > >> > could Apple see this process flow as a "intermediary translation
>> > > >> > or
>> > > >> > compatibility layer or tool". I can see both sides, but am
>> > > >> > curious to
>> > > >> know
>> > > >> > if anyone at Nitobi has discussed the 4.0 license agreement and
>> > > >> > its
>> > > >> > implications, if any, to PhoneGap.
>> > > >> > Thanks,
>> > > >> > John
>> > > >> --
>> > > >> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
>> > > >> Groups "phonegap" group.
>> > > >> To post to this group, send email to phonegap@googlegroups.com
>> > > >> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
>> > > >> For more info on PhoneGap or to download the code go
>> > > >> towww.phonegap.com
>> > > >> To unsubscribe, reply using "remove me" as the subject.
>> > > > --
>> > > > Vivian Aranha
>> > > > --
>> > > > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
>> > > > Groups "phonegap" group.
>> > > > To post to this group, send email to phonegap@googlegroups.com
>> > > > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
>> > > > For more info on PhoneGap or to download the code go
>> > > > towww.phonegap.com
>> --
>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
>> Groups "phonegap" group.
>> To post to this group, send email to phonegap@googlegroups.com
>> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
>> phonegap+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com
>> For more options, visit this group at
>> http://groups.google.com/group/phonegap?hl=en?hl=en
>> For more info on PhoneGap or to download the code go to www.phonegap.com
> --
> Vivian Aranha
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
> Groups "phonegap" group.
> To post to this group, send email to phonegap@googlegroups.com
> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
> phonegap+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com
> For more options, visit this group at
> http://groups.google.com/group/phonegap?hl=en?hl=en
> For more info on PhoneGap or to download the code go to www.phonegap.com
-- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
Groups "phonegap" group.
To post to this group, send email to phonegap@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
phonegap+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/phonegap?hl=en?hl=en
For more info on PhoneGap or to download the code go to www.phonegap.com
At this point anything you've heard is speculation. I have submitted a support ticket to Apple and will notify the list of the outcome when I receive it.
Sent from my iPhone
On 2010-04-11, at 3:27 PM, David Orchard <orch...@pacificspirit.com> wrote:
> I don't think that conclusively proves that Apple will not in the > future start rejecting Phonegap apps because they decide to assert > that the apps violate the new agreement. It's the classic black swan > situation. Just because you've never seen a black swan doesn't mean > they don't exist.
> I'd like formal word from Apple on the matter. Nitobi asserted that > phonegap was ok via a twitter post, but I'd like to see what > communication caused that tweet to go out.
> I'm particularly worried about what they could start asserting > "compatibility layer" means. Under one interpretation, phonegap uses > javascript/css/html5 as a "compatibility layer" to objective-C.
> Nitobi, can you forward the communication that you got from Apple that > said phonegap was ok under the new licensing agreement?
> Dave
> On Sun, Apr 11, 2010 at 3:20 PM, Vivian Aranha > <vivianara...@gmail.com> wrote: >> Hi
>> I used javascript and html for my application which got approved >> today.
>> I opened a webview and called a www folder same structure as Phonegap
>> On Sun, Apr 11, 2010 at 3:21 PM, Jason72 <jason.mouss...@gmail.com> >> wrote:
>>> I really hope everyone here is right. PhoneGap was the first thing >>> that came to mind when I read about this new tos.
>>> Even though it's not a cross compiler option it still strays away >>> from >>> what Jobs seemed to be saying in the keynote. I wish the dude could >>> just chill out a bit on all this.
>>> Has anyone been able to examine how iAd works? From what I've been >>> reading it appears to mimic PhoneGap/jQtouch somewhat... Maybe I'm >>> wrong though.
>>> -Jason
>>> On Apr 11, 8:01 am, saumya <2saumya...@gmail.com> wrote: >>>> I also hope, Phonegap should be in good position. >>>> saumya
>>>> On Apr 11, 10:30 am, Jasson Cascante <jcasca...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>> Vivian, this would be because the new ToS are still in beta and >>>>> will >>>>> be >>>>> valid just after the new iPhoneOS 4 is released.
>>>>> Anyways I think Phonegap is safe and complies with the new terms.
>>>>> -Yëco
>>>>> -- >>>>> Jasson Cascante >>>>> Senior Interactive Engineer, Interactive Engineering >>>>> Roundbox Global : An Idhasoft Company >>>>> ------------------------------------------------------------------ >>>>> Avenida 11 y Calle 7-9, Barrio Amón, San Jose, Costa Rica >>>>> tel: 404.567.5000ext. 2152 | cel:+506 8810.9879| fax:678.623.0305 >>>>> email: jasson.casca...@rbxglobal.com |www.rbxglobal.com >>>>> ------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>> On Sat, Apr 10, 2010 at 10:39 PM, Vivian Aranha >>>>> <vivianara...@gmail.com>wrote:
>>>>>> Hi
>>>>>> I used javascript and html for my application which got approved >>>>>> today.
>>>>>> I opened a webview and called a www folder same structure as >>>>>> Phonegap
>>>>>> On Sun, Apr 11, 2010 at 12:27 AM, Kirk Strobeck >>>>>> <k...@strobeck.com> >>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>> I would assume that phonegap is in good standing, as nothing is >>>>>>> necessarily proprietary like the Adobe Air app (enabler?/ >>>>>>> player?). >>>>>>> JavaScript, HTML, and CSS are not proprietary, and don't link to >>>>>>> "documented APIs" as the language implies. I agree though, it's >>>>>>> easy >>>>>>> to see both sides of the argument. Is it really all speculation >>>>>>> until >>>>>>> the release of the SDK, or even till the first submission after?
>>>>>>> On Apr 10, 8:47 pm, John Britton <jab...@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>> Is there concern regarding the new language in the 4.0 license >>>>>>>> agreement >>>>>>>> with regards to the use of PhoneGap?
>>>>>>>> "Applications must be originally written in Objective-C, C, C+ >>>>>>>> +, >>>>>>>> or >>>>>>>> JavaScript as executed by the iPhone OS WebKit engine, and only >>>>>>>> code >>>>>>> written >>>>>>>> in C, C++, and Objective-C may compile and directly link >>>>>>>> against >>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>> Documented APIs (e.g., Applications that link to Documented >>>>>>>> APIs >>>>>>>> through >>>>>>> an >>>>>>>> intermediary translation or compatibility layer or tool are >>>>>>> prohibited)."
>>>>>>>> I have thought about this prior to posting this email because >>>>>>>> we >>>>>>>> are >>>>>>> using >>>>>>>> javascript and calling Objective-C to handle the various iPhone >>>>>>>> SDK API, >>>>>>> but >>>>>>>> could Apple see this process flow as a "intermediary >>>>>>>> translation >>>>>>>> or >>>>>>>> compatibility layer or tool". I can see both sides, but am >>>>>>>> curious to >>>>>>> know >>>>>>>> if anyone at Nitobi has discussed the 4.0 license agreement and >>>>>>>> its >>>>>>>> implications, if any, to PhoneGap.
>>>>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>>>>> John
>>>>>>> -- >>>>>>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the >>>>>>> Google >>>>>>> Groups "phonegap" group. >>>>>>> To post to this group, send email to phonegap@googlegroups.com >>>>>>> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
>>>>>>> For more info on PhoneGap or to download the code go >>>>>>> towww.phonegap.com
>>>>>>> To unsubscribe, reply using "remove me" as the subject.
>>>>>> -- >>>>>> Vivian Aranha
>>>>>> -- >>>>>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the >>>>>> Google >>>>>> Groups "phonegap" group. >>>>>> To post to this group, send email to phonegap@googlegroups.com >>>>>> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
>>>>>> For more info on PhoneGap or to download the code go >>>>>> towww.phonegap.com
>>> -- >>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google >>> Groups "phonegap" group. >>> To post to this group, send email to phonegap@googlegroups.com >>> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to >>> phonegap+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com >>> For more options, visit this group at >>> http://groups.google.com/group/phonegap?hl=en?hl=en
>>> For more info on PhoneGap or to download the code go to www.phonegap.com
>> -- >> Vivian Aranha
>> -- >> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google >> Groups "phonegap" group. >> To post to this group, send email to phonegap@googlegroups.com >> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to >> phonegap+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com >> For more options, visit this group at >> http://groups.google.com/group/phonegap?hl=en?hl=en
>> For more info on PhoneGap or to download the code go to www.phonegap.com
> -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google > Groups "phonegap" group. > To post to this group, send email to phonegap@googlegroups.com > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > phonegap+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com > For more options, visit this group at > http://groups.google.com/group/phonegap?hl=en?hl=en
> For more info on PhoneGap or to download the code go to www.phonegap.com
> wrote: > At this point anything you've heard is speculation. > I have submitted a support ticket to Apple and will notify the list of the > outcome when I receive it.
> Sent from my iPhone
> On 2010-04-11, at 3:27 PM, David Orchard <orch...@pacificspirit.com> > wrote:
> I don't think that conclusively proves that Apple will not in the >> future start rejecting Phonegap apps because they decide to assert >> that the apps violate the new agreement. It's the classic black swan >> situation. Just because you've never seen a black swan doesn't mean >> they don't exist.
>> I'd like formal word from Apple on the matter. Nitobi asserted that >> phonegap was ok via a twitter post, but I'd like to see what >> communication caused that tweet to go out.
>> I'm particularly worried about what they could start asserting >> "compatibility layer" means. Under one interpretation, phonegap uses >> javascript/css/html5 as a "compatibility layer" to objective-C.
>> Nitobi, can you forward the communication that you got from Apple that >> said phonegap was ok under the new licensing agreement?
>> Dave
>> On Sun, Apr 11, 2010 at 3:20 PM, Vivian Aranha <vivianara...@gmail.com> >> wrote:
>>> Hi
>>> I used javascript and html for my application which got approved today.
>>> I opened a webview and called a www folder same structure as Phonegap
>>> On Sun, Apr 11, 2010 at 3:21 PM, Jason72 <jason.mouss...@gmail.com> >>> wrote:
>>>> I really hope everyone here is right. PhoneGap was the first thing >>>> that came to mind when I read about this new tos.
>>>> Even though it's not a cross compiler option it still strays away from >>>> what Jobs seemed to be saying in the keynote. I wish the dude could >>>> just chill out a bit on all this.
>>>> Has anyone been able to examine how iAd works? From what I've been >>>> reading it appears to mimic PhoneGap/jQtouch somewhat... Maybe I'm >>>> wrong though.
>>>> -Jason
>>>> On Apr 11, 8:01 am, saumya <2saumya...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>> I also hope, Phonegap should be in good position. >>>>> saumya
>>>>> On Apr 11, 10:30 am, Jasson Cascante <jcasca...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>> Vivian, this would be because the new ToS are still in beta and will >>>>>> be >>>>>> valid just after the new iPhoneOS 4 is released.
>>>>> Anyways I think Phonegap is safe and complies with the new terms.
>>>>> -Yëco
>>>>> -- >>>>>> Jasson Cascante >>>>>> Senior Interactive Engineer, Interactive Engineering >>>>>> Roundbox Global : An Idhasoft Company >>>>>> ------------------------------------------------------------------ >>>>>> Avenida 11 y Calle 7-9, Barrio Amón, San Jose, Costa Rica >>>>>> tel: 404.567.5000ext. 2152 | cel:+506 8810.9879| fax:678.623.0305 >>>>>> email: jasson.casca...@rbxglobal.com |www.rbxglobal.com >>>>>> ------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>> On Sat, Apr 10, 2010 at 10:39 PM, Vivian Aranha >>>>>> <vivianara...@gmail.com>wrote:
>>>>> Hi
>>>>> I used javascript and html for my application which got approved >>>>>>> today.
>>>>> I opened a webview and called a www folder same structure as >>>>>>> Phonegap
>>>>> On Sun, Apr 11, 2010 at 12:27 AM, Kirk Strobeck <k...@strobeck.com> >>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>> I would assume that phonegap is in good standing, as nothing is >>>>>>>> necessarily proprietary like the Adobe Air app (enabler?/player?). >>>>>>>> JavaScript, HTML, and CSS are not proprietary, and don't link to >>>>>>>> "documented APIs" as the language implies. I agree though, it's >>>>>>>> easy >>>>>>>> to see both sides of the argument. Is it really all speculation >>>>>>>> until >>>>>>>> the release of the SDK, or even till the first submission after?
>>>>> On Apr 10, 8:47 pm, John Britton <jab...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>> Is there concern regarding the new language in the 4.0 license >>>>>>>>> agreement >>>>>>>>> with regards to the use of PhoneGap?
>>>>> "Applications must be originally written in Objective-C, C, C++, >>>>>>>>> or >>>>>>>>> JavaScript as executed by the iPhone OS WebKit engine, and only >>>>>>>>> code
>>>>>>>> written
>>>>>>>>> in C, C++, and Objective-C may compile and directly link against >>>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>>> Documented APIs (e.g., Applications that link to Documented APIs >>>>>>>>> through
>>>>>>>> an
>>>>>>>>> intermediary translation or compatibility layer or tool are
>>>>>>>> prohibited)."
>>>>> I have thought about this prior to posting this email because we >>>>>>>>> are
>>>>>>>> using
>>>>>>>>> javascript and calling Objective-C to handle the various iPhone >>>>>>>>> SDK API,
>>>>>>>> but
>>>>>>>>> could Apple see this process flow as a "intermediary translation >>>>>>>>> or >>>>>>>>> compatibility layer or tool". I can see both sides, but am >>>>>>>>> curious to
>>>>>>>> know
>>>>>>>>> if anyone at Nitobi has discussed the 4.0 license agreement and >>>>>>>>> its >>>>>>>>> implications, if any, to PhoneGap.
>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>> John
>>>>> -- >>>>>>>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google >>>>>>>> Groups "phonegap" group. >>>>>>>> To post to this group, send email to phonegap@googlegroups.com >>>>>>>> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
>>>>>>>> phonegap+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com<phonegap%2Bunsubscribe@googlegroups.c om> >>>>>>>> <phonegap%2Bunsubscr...@googlegroups.c >>>>>>>> om> >>>>>>>> For more options, visit this group at >>>>>>>> http://groups.google.com/group/phonegap?hl=en?hl=en
>>>>> For more info on PhoneGap or to download the code go >>>>>>>> towww.phonegap.com
>>>>> To unsubscribe, reply using "remove me" as the subject.
>>>>> -- >>>>>>> Vivian Aranha
>>>>> -- >>>>>>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google >>>>>>> Groups "phonegap" group. >>>>>>> To post to this group, send email to phonegap@googlegroups.com >>>>>>> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
>>>>>>> phonegap+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com<phonegap%2Bunsubscribe@googlegroups.c om> >>>>>>> <phonegap%2Bunsubscr...@googlegroups.c >>>>>>> om> >>>>>>> For more options, visit this group at >>>>>>> http://groups.google.com/group/phonegap?hl=en?hl=en
>>>>> For more info on PhoneGap or to download the code go >>>>>>> towww.phonegap.com
>>>> -- >>>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google >>>> Groups "phonegap" group. >>>> To post to this group, send email to phonegap@googlegroups.com >>>> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to >>>> phonegap+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com<phonegap%2Bunsubscribe@googlegroups.c om> >>>> For more options, visit this group at >>>> http://groups.google.com/group/phonegap?hl=en?hl=en
>>>> For more info on PhoneGap or to download the code go to >>>> www.phonegap.com
>>> -- >>> Vivian Aranha
>>> -- >>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google >>> Groups "phonegap" group. >>> To post to this group, send email to phonegap@googlegroups.com >>> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to >>> phonegap+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com<phonegap%2Bunsubscribe@googlegroups.c om> >>> For more options, visit this group at >>> http://groups.google.com/group/phonegap?hl=en?hl=en
>>> For more info on PhoneGap or to download the code go to www.phonegap.com
>> -- >> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google >> Groups "phonegap" group. >> To post to this group, send email to phonegap@googlegroups.com >> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to >> phonegap+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com<phonegap%2Bunsubscribe@googlegroups.c om> >> For more options, visit this group at >> http://groups.google.com/group/phonegap?hl=en?hl=en
>> For more info on PhoneGap or to download the code go to www.phonegap.com
> -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google > Groups "phonegap" group. > To post to this group, send email to phonegap@googlegroups.com > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > phonegap+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com<phonegap%2Bunsubscribe@googlegroups.c om> > For more options, visit this group at > http://groups.google.com/group/phonegap?hl=en?hl=en
> For more info on PhoneGap or to download the code go to www.phonegap.com
> On Sun, Apr 11, 2010 at 8:34 PM, Jesse MacFadyen <jesse.macfad...@nitobi.com
> > wrote: > > At this point anything you've heard is speculation. > > I have submitted a support ticket to Apple and will notify the list of the > > outcome when I receive it.
> > Sent from my iPhone
> > On 2010-04-11, at 3:27 PM, David Orchard <orch...@pacificspirit.com> > > wrote:
> > I don't think that conclusively proves that Apple will not in the > >> future start rejecting Phonegap apps because they decide to assert > >> that the apps violate the new agreement. It's the classic black swan > >> situation. Just because you've never seen a black swan doesn't mean > >> they don't exist.
> >> I'd like formal word from Apple on the matter. Nitobi asserted that > >> phonegap was ok via a twitter post, but I'd like to see what > >> communication caused that tweet to go out.
> >> I'm particularly worried about what they could start asserting > >> "compatibility layer" means. Under one interpretation, phonegap uses > >> javascript/css/html5 as a "compatibility layer" to objective-C.
> >> Nitobi, can you forward the communication that you got from Apple that > >> said phonegap was ok under the new licensing agreement?
> >> Dave
> >> On Sun, Apr 11, 2010 at 3:20 PM, Vivian Aranha <vivianara...@gmail.com> > >> wrote:
> >>> Hi
> >>> I used javascript and html for my application which got approved today.
> >>> I opened a webview and called a www folder same structure as Phonegap
> >>> On Sun, Apr 11, 2010 at 3:21 PM, Jason72 <jason.mouss...@gmail.com> > >>> wrote:
> >>>> I really hope everyone here is right. PhoneGap was the first thing > >>>> that came to mind when I read about this new tos.
> >>>> Even though it's not a cross compiler option it still strays away from > >>>> what Jobs seemed to be saying in the keynote. I wish the dude could > >>>> just chill out a bit on all this.
> >>>> Has anyone been able to examine how iAd works? From what I've been > >>>> reading it appears to mimic PhoneGap/jQtouch somewhat... Maybe I'm > >>>> wrong though.
> >>>> -Jason
> >>>> On Apr 11, 8:01 am, saumya <2saumya...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>>> I also hope, Phonegap should be in good position. > >>>>> saumya
> >>>>> On Sun, Apr 11, 2010 at 12:27 AM, Kirk Strobeck <k...@strobeck.com> > >>>>>>> wrote:
> >>>>> I would assume that phonegap is in good standing, as nothing is > >>>>>>>> necessarily proprietary like the Adobe Air app (enabler?/player?). > >>>>>>>> JavaScript, HTML, and CSS are not proprietary, and don't link to > >>>>>>>> "documented APIs" as the language implies. I agree though, it's > >>>>>>>> easy > >>>>>>>> to see both sides of the argument. Is it really all speculation > >>>>>>>> until > >>>>>>>> the release of the SDK, or even till the first submission after?
> >>>>> On Apr 10, 8:47 pm, John Britton <jab...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>> Is there concern regarding the new language in the 4.0 license > >>>>>>>>> agreement > >>>>>>>>> with regards to the use of PhoneGap?
> >>>>> "Applications must be originally written in Objective-C, C, C++, > >>>>>>>>> or > >>>>>>>>> JavaScript as executed by the iPhone OS WebKit engine, and only > >>>>>>>>> code
> >>>>>>>> written
> >>>>>>>>> in C, C++, and Objective-C may compile and directly link against > >>>>>>>>> the > >>>>>>>>> Documented APIs (e.g., Applications that link to Documented APIs > >>>>>>>>> through
> >>>>>>>> an
> >>>>>>>>> intermediary translation or compatibility layer or tool are
> >>>>>>>> prohibited)."
> >>>>> I have thought about this prior to posting this email because we > >>>>>>>>> are
> >>>>>>>> using
> >>>>>>>>> javascript and calling Objective-C to handle the various iPhone > >>>>>>>>> SDK API,
> >>>>>>>> but
> >>>>>>>>> could Apple see this process flow as a "intermediary translation > >>>>>>>>> or > >>>>>>>>> compatibility layer or tool". I can see both sides, but am > >>>>>>>>> curious to
> >>>>>>>> know
> >>>>>>>>> if anyone at Nitobi has discussed the 4.0 license agreement and > >>>>>>>>> its > >>>>>>>>> implications, if any, to PhoneGap.
> >>>>> Thanks,
> >>>>> John
> >>>>> -- > >>>>>>>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google > >>>>>>>> Groups "phonegap" group. > >>>>>>>> To post to this group, send email to phonegap@googlegroups.com > >>>>>>>> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
> >>>>>>>> phonegap+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com<phonegap%2Bunsubscribe@googlegroups.c om> > >>>>>>>> <phonegap%2Bunsubscr...@googlegroups.c > >>>>>>>> om> > >>>>>>>> For more options, visit this group at > >>>>>>>>http://groups.google.com/group/phonegap?hl=en?hl=en
> >>>>> For more info on PhoneGap or to download the code go > >>>>>>>> towww.phonegap.com
> >>>>> To unsubscribe, reply using "remove me" as the subject.
> >>>>> -- > >>>>>>> Vivian Aranha
> >>>>> -- > >>>>>>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google > >>>>>>> Groups "phonegap" group. > >>>>>>> To post to this group, send email to phonegap@googlegroups.com > >>>>>>> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
> >>>>>>> phonegap+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com<phonegap%2Bunsubscribe@googlegroups.c om> > >>>>>>> <phonegap%2Bunsubscr...@googlegroups.c > >>>>>>> om> > >>>>>>> For more options, visit this group at > >>>>>>>http://groups.google.com/group/phonegap?hl=en?hl=en
> >>>>> For more info on PhoneGap or to download the code go > >>>>>>> towww.phonegap.com
> >>>> -- > >>>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google > >>>> Groups "phonegap" group. > >>>> To post to this group, send email to phonegap@googlegroups.com > >>>> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > >>>> phonegap+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com<phonegap%2Bunsubscribe@googlegroups.c om> > >>>> For more options, visit this group at > >>>>http://groups.google.com/group/phonegap?hl=en?hl=en
> >>>> For more info on PhoneGap or to download the code go to > >>>>www.phonegap.com
> >>> -- > >>> Vivian Aranha
> >>> -- > >>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google > >>> Groups "phonegap" group. > >>> To post to this group, send email to phonegap@googlegroups.com > >>> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > >>> phonegap+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com<phonegap%2Bunsubscribe@googlegroups.c om> > >>> For more options, visit this group at > >>>http://groups.google.com/group/phonegap?hl=en?hl=en
> >>> For more info on PhoneGap or to download the code go towww.phonegap.com
> >> -- > >> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google > >> Groups "phonegap" group. > >> To post to this group, send email to phonegap@googlegroups.com > >> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > >> phonegap+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com<phonegap%2Bunsubscribe@googlegroups.c om> > >> For more options, visit this group at > >>http://groups.google.com/group/phonegap?hl=en?hl=en
> >> For more info on PhoneGap or to download the code go towww.phonegap.com
> > -- > > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google > > Groups "phonegap" group. > > To post to this group, send email to phonegap@googlegroups.com > > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > > phonegap+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com<phonegap%2Bunsubscribe@googlegroups.c om> > > For more options, visit this group at > >http://groups.google.com/group/phonegap?hl=en?hl=en
> > For more info on PhoneGap or to download the code go towww.phonegap.com
> On Apr 12, 2:12 pm, John Britton <jab...@gmail.com> wrote: > > Jesse,
> > Thanks.
> > John
> > On Sun, Apr 11, 2010 at 8:34 PM, Jesse MacFadyen < > jesse.macfad...@nitobi.com
> > > wrote: > > > At this point anything you've heard is speculation. > > > I have submitted a support ticket to Apple and will notify the list of > the > > > outcome when I receive it.
> > > Sent from my iPhone
> > > On 2010-04-11, at 3:27 PM, David Orchard <orch...@pacificspirit.com> > > > wrote:
> > > I don't think that conclusively proves that Apple will not in the > > >> future start rejecting Phonegap apps because they decide to assert > > >> that the apps violate the new agreement. It's the classic black swan > > >> situation. Just because you've never seen a black swan doesn't mean > > >> they don't exist.
> > >> I'd like formal word from Apple on the matter. Nitobi asserted that > > >> phonegap was ok via a twitter post, but I'd like to see what > > >> communication caused that tweet to go out.
> > >> I'm particularly worried about what they could start asserting > > >> "compatibility layer" means. Under one interpretation, phonegap uses > > >> javascript/css/html5 as a "compatibility layer" to objective-C.
> > >> Nitobi, can you forward the communication that you got from Apple that > > >> said phonegap was ok under the new licensing agreement?
> > >> Dave
> > >> On Sun, Apr 11, 2010 at 3:20 PM, Vivian Aranha < > vivianara...@gmail.com> > > >> wrote:
> > >>> Hi
> > >>> I used javascript and html for my application which got approved > today.
> > >>> I opened a webview and called a www folder same structure as Phonegap
> > >>> On Sun, Apr 11, 2010 at 3:21 PM, Jason72 <jason.mouss...@gmail.com> > > >>> wrote:
> > >>>> I really hope everyone here is right. PhoneGap was the first thing > > >>>> that came to mind when I read about this new tos.
> > >>>> Even though it's not a cross compiler option it still strays away > from > > >>>> what Jobs seemed to be saying in the keynote. I wish the dude could > > >>>> just chill out a bit on all this.
> > >>>> Has anyone been able to examine how iAd works? From what I've been > > >>>> reading it appears to mimic PhoneGap/jQtouch somewhat... Maybe I'm > > >>>> wrong though.
> > >>>>> Vivian, this would be because the new ToS are still in beta and > will > > >>>>>> be > > >>>>>> valid just after the new iPhoneOS 4 is released.
> > >>>>> Anyways I think Phonegap is safe and complies with the new terms.
> > >>>>> On Sun, Apr 11, 2010 at 12:27 AM, Kirk Strobeck < > k...@strobeck.com> > > >>>>>>> wrote:
> > >>>>> I would assume that phonegap is in good standing, as nothing is > > >>>>>>>> necessarily proprietary like the Adobe Air app > (enabler?/player?). > > >>>>>>>> JavaScript, HTML, and CSS are not proprietary, and don't link to > > >>>>>>>> "documented APIs" as the language implies. I agree though, it's > > >>>>>>>> easy > > >>>>>>>> to see both sides of the argument. Is it really all speculation > > >>>>>>>> until > > >>>>>>>> the release of the SDK, or even till the first submission after?
> > >>>>> On Apr 10, 8:47 pm, John Britton <jab...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >>>>>>>>> Is there concern regarding the new language in the 4.0 license > > >>>>>>>>> agreement > > >>>>>>>>> with regards to the use of PhoneGap?
> > >>>>> "Applications must be originally written in Objective-C, C, C++, > > >>>>>>>>> or > > >>>>>>>>> JavaScript as executed by the iPhone OS WebKit engine, and only > > >>>>>>>>> code
> > >>>>>>>> written
> > >>>>>>>>> in C, C++, and Objective-C may compile and directly link > against > > >>>>>>>>> the > > >>>>>>>>> Documented APIs (e.g., Applications that link to Documented > APIs > > >>>>>>>>> through
> > >>>>>>>> an
> > >>>>>>>>> intermediary translation or compatibility layer or tool are
> > >>>>>>>> prohibited)."
> > >>>>> I have thought about this prior to posting this email because we > > >>>>>>>>> are
> > >>>>>>>> using
> > >>>>>>>>> javascript and calling Objective-C to handle the various iPhone > > >>>>>>>>> SDK API,
> > >>>>>>>> but
> > >>>>>>>>> could Apple see this process flow as a "intermediary > translation > > >>>>>>>>> or > > >>>>>>>>> compatibility layer or tool". I can see both sides, but am > > >>>>>>>>> curious to
> > >>>>>>>> know
> > >>>>>>>>> if anyone at Nitobi has discussed the 4.0 license agreement and > > >>>>>>>>> its > > >>>>>>>>> implications, if any, to PhoneGap.
> > >>>>> Thanks,
> > >>>>> John
> > >>>>> -- > > >>>>>>>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the > Google > > >>>>>>>> Groups "phonegap" group. > > >>>>>>>> To post to this group, send email to phonegap@googlegroups.com > > >>>>>>>> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
> > >>>>> For more info on PhoneGap or to download the code go > > >>>>>>>> towww.phonegap.com
> > >>>>> To unsubscribe, reply using "remove me" as the subject.
> > >>>>> -- > > >>>>>>> Vivian Aranha
> > >>>>> -- > > >>>>>>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the > Google > > >>>>>>> Groups "phonegap" group. > > >>>>>>> To post to this group, send email to phonegap@googlegroups.com > > >>>>>>> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
> > >>>>> For more info on PhoneGap or to download the code go > > >>>>>>> towww.phonegap.com
> > >>>> -- > > >>>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google > > >>>> Groups "phonegap" group. > > >>>> To post to this group, send email to phonegap@googlegroups.com > > >>>> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > > >>>> phonegap+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com<phonegap%2Bunsubscribe@googlegroups.c om> > <phonegap%2Bunsubscribe@googlegroups.com<phonegap%252Bunsubscribe@googlegro ups.com>
> > >>>> For more info on PhoneGap or to download the code go to > > >>>>www.phonegap.com
> > >>> -- > > >>> Vivian Aranha
> > >>> -- > > >>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google > > >>> Groups "phonegap" group. > > >>> To post to this group, send email to phonegap@googlegroups.com > > >>> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > > >>> phonegap+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com<phonegap%2Bunsubscribe@googlegroups.c om> > <phonegap%2Bunsubscribe@googlegroups.com<phonegap%252Bunsubscribe@googlegro ups.com>
> > >>> For more info on PhoneGap or to download the code go > towww.phonegap.com
> > >> -- > > >> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google > > >> Groups "phonegap" group. > > >> To post to this group, send email to phonegap@googlegroups.com > > >> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > > >> phonegap+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com<phonegap%2Bunsubscribe@googlegroups.c om> > <phonegap%2Bunsubscribe@googlegroups.com<phonegap%252Bunsubscribe@googlegro ups.com>
I have been following this kind of discussion also on the Appcelerator site. If we are not allowed to develop against a third party API any more, this will be a major problem for Titanium (the product from Appcelerator). For PhoneGap I see this a little bit more differenciated: From my understanding it would be OK to open a webview from Objective-C and then load HTML5 content and Javascript into that (who PhoneGap does), as long as there are no code bridges between the native API and Javascript. This will be the case as soon as we start to use PhoneGap APIs for camera, acceleration, geolocation etc. So my reading is: If an app works in standard mobile Safari, I am allowed to package it as a native app with PhoneGap. As soon as I start to use some APIs not available in Safari (or standard webview), I violate the ToS 4.0.
Of course this is just my personal interpretation as of today. But I have a few projectscoming up and I have to make a decision at some point soon which way to go...
Georg
On 12 Apr., 15:11, John Britton <jab...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Apr 12, 2:12 pm, John Britton <jab...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > Jesse,
> > > Thanks.
> > > John
> > > On Sun, Apr 11, 2010 at 8:34 PM, Jesse MacFadyen < > > jesse.macfad...@nitobi.com
> > > > wrote: > > > > At this point anything you've heard is speculation. > > > > I have submitted a support ticket to Apple and will notify the list of > > the > > > > outcome when I receive it.
> > > > Sent from my iPhone
> > > > On 2010-04-11, at 3:27 PM, David Orchard <orch...@pacificspirit.com> > > > > wrote:
> > > > I don't think that conclusively proves that Apple will not in the > > > >> future start rejecting Phonegap apps because they decide to assert > > > >> that the apps violate the new agreement. It's the classic black swan > > > >> situation. Just because you've never seen a black swan doesn't mean > > > >> they don't exist.
> > > >> I'd like formal word from Apple on the matter. Nitobi asserted that > > > >> phonegap was ok via a twitter post, but I'd like to see what > > > >> communication caused that tweet to go out.
> > > >> I'm particularly worried about what they could start asserting > > > >> "compatibility layer" means. Under one interpretation, phonegap uses > > > >> javascript/css/html5 as a "compatibility layer" to objective-C.
> > > >> Nitobi, can you forward the communication that you got from Apple that > > > >> said phonegap was ok under the new licensing agreement?
> > > >>> On Sun, Apr 11, 2010 at 3:21 PM, Jason72 <jason.mouss...@gmail.com> > > > >>> wrote:
> > > >>>> I really hope everyone here is right. PhoneGap was the first thing > > > >>>> that came to mind when I read about this new tos.
> > > >>>> Even though it's not a cross compiler option it still strays away > > from > > > >>>> what Jobs seemed to be saying in the keynote. I wish the dude could > > > >>>> just chill out a bit on all this.
> > > >>>> Has anyone been able to examine how iAd works? From what I've been > > > >>>> reading it appears to mimic PhoneGap/jQtouch somewhat... Maybe I'm > > > >>>> wrong though.
> > > >>>>> Vivian, this would be because the new ToS are still in beta and > > will > > > >>>>>> be > > > >>>>>> valid just after the new iPhoneOS 4 is released.
> > > >>>>> Anyways I think Phonegap is safe and complies with the new terms.
> > > >>>>> I would assume that phonegap is in good standing, as nothing is > > > >>>>>>>> necessarily proprietary like the Adobe Air app > > (enabler?/player?). > > > >>>>>>>> JavaScript, HTML, and CSS are not proprietary, and don't link to > > > >>>>>>>> "documented APIs" as the language implies. I agree though, it's > > > >>>>>>>> easy > > > >>>>>>>> to see both sides of the argument. Is it really all speculation > > > >>>>>>>> until > > > >>>>>>>> the release of the SDK, or even till the first submission after?
> > > >>>>> On Apr 10, 8:47 pm, John Britton <jab...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > >>>>>>>>> Is there concern regarding the new language in the 4.0 license > > > >>>>>>>>> agreement > > > >>>>>>>>> with regards to the use of PhoneGap?
> > > >>>>> "Applications must be originally written in Objective-C, C, C++, > > > >>>>>>>>> or > > > >>>>>>>>> JavaScript as executed by the iPhone OS WebKit engine, and only > > > >>>>>>>>> code
> > > >>>>>>>> written
> > > >>>>>>>>> in C, C++, and Objective-C may compile and directly link > > against > > > >>>>>>>>> the > > > >>>>>>>>> Documented APIs (e.g., Applications that link to Documented > > APIs > > > >>>>>>>>> through
> > > >>>>>>>> an
> > > >>>>>>>>> intermediary translation or compatibility layer or tool are
> > > >>>>>>>> prohibited)."
> > > >>>>> I have thought about this prior to posting this email because we > > > >>>>>>>>> are
> > > >>>>>>>> using
> > > >>>>>>>>> javascript and calling Objective-C to handle the various iPhone > > > >>>>>>>>> SDK API,
> > > >>>>>>>> but
> > > >>>>>>>>> could Apple see this process flow as a "intermediary > > translation > > > >>>>>>>>> or > > > >>>>>>>>> compatibility layer or tool". I can see both sides, but am > > > >>>>>>>>> curious to
> > > >>>>>>>> know
> > > >>>>>>>>> if anyone at Nitobi has discussed the 4.0 license agreement and > > > >>>>>>>>> its > > > >>>>>>>>> implications, if any, to PhoneGap.
> > > >>>>> Thanks,
> > > >>>>> John
> > > >>>>> -- > > > >>>>>>>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the > > Google > > > >>>>>>>> Groups "phonegap" group. > > > >>>>>>>> To post to this group, send email to phonegap@googlegroups.com > > > >>>>>>>> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
> > > >>>>> For more info on PhoneGap or to download the code go > > > >>>>>>>> towww.phonegap.com
> > > >>>>> To unsubscribe, reply using "remove me" as the subject.
> > > >>>>> -- > > > >>>>>>> Vivian Aranha
> > > >>>>> -- > > > >>>>>>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the > > Google > > > >>>>>>> Groups "phonegap" group. > > > >>>>>>> To post to this group, send email to phonegap@googlegroups.com > > > >>>>>>> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
> > > >>>>> For more info on PhoneGap or to download the code go > > > >>>>>>> towww.phonegap.com
> > > >>>> -- > > > >>>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google > > > >>>> Groups "phonegap" group. > > > >>>> To post to this group, send email to phonegap@googlegroups.com > > > >>>> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > > > >>>> phonegap+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com<phonegap%2Bunsubscribe@googlegroups.c om> > > <phonegap%2Bunsubscribe@googlegroups.com<phonegap%252Bunsubscribe@googlegro ups.com>
Am adding a link to Jesse's blog post as (based on an IRC
conversation) people are reading this thread and not realising that
Apple have confirmed to Nitobi that PhoneGap's not in violation of
3.3.1:
