On Apr 15, 2010, at 1:23 PM, Bert Freudenberg wrote:

> On 15.04.2010, at 22:11, Lawson English wrote:
>> 
>> Bert Freudenberg wrote:
>>> Not to defend Apple's hubris or anything, but John's other apps written in Squeak are still in the store. Scratch was not taken down because it is implemented in Squeak, but because it downloads code from the internet and runs it.
>>> 
>>> - Bert -
>> 
>> AH, if that is the case, then there is hope.  If you could modify things so that only the official site could supply "content" then perhaps the policy can be circumvented...
> 
> Not really. Apple wants to ensure that the behavior they test is the same as the behavior the users see. So no "active content" download.

That was already prohibited under the old agreement.  So you might be partly right... Scratch might have slipped through without Apple noticing that it downloads code, and once they noticed that it does, they yanked it. 


> Typical apps do not download code, they are only updated when a new version gets released (and each new version is tested again by Apple).
> 
> In that sense John's other apps are fine, they are just an executable written in a mix of C and Objective-C, plus a fixed datafile we usually call "image".

Yeah, and Java programs are a program written in C with fixed files called ".class" files.  If Apple's lawyers were OK with that, they wouldn't have carefully chosen the words "Applications must be originally written in Objective-C,  C,  C++,  or JavaScript".  It's an error to assume that just because John's other apps haven't been yanked *yet* that Apple's legalese doesn't mean what it plainly says. 

Cheers,
Josh



> 
> - Bert -
> 
> 
>