[sword-devel] On the topic of an iPhone front-end
greg.hellings at gmail.com
Wed Apr 16 10:56:41 MST 2008
On Wed, Apr 16, 2008 at 12:33 PM, DM Smith <dmsmith555 at yahoo.com> wrote:
> Greg Hellings wrote:
> > Here's an article from the Slashdot/Linux.com world of interest
> > regarding the viability of licensing restrictions placed on the iPhone
> > SDK users, developers and software. It seems like, unless Apple comes
> > out with some more clarification or lifts the NDA portion of it to at
> > least allow the dissemination of source code, we'd be unable to use
> > The SWORD Project's library in any sort of front end (unless a
> > dual-license of it was made available for this specific purpose).
> > I'll try to keep my eyes open as anything comes to develop on this
> > front.
> > http://www.linux.com/feature/131752
> In reading the article I see the following (I might be wrong as IANAL):
> 1) Our code is GPLv2, not v3, and because it doesn't have the
> anti-TiVoization clause, the code signing requirement is not a problem.
That's how I read it as well. Thus that portion is no problem.
> 2) The SDK agreement's NDA does seem to prohibit blending with GPLv2. I
> suppose that it can be made available to others that sign the same NDA,
> but that is not the same as providing it to anyone who wants it. (I
> wonder why it is not a problem with MacSword/Eloquent, which uses Apple
> interfaces and perhaps some of these are not publicly documented. I seem
> to remember "signing" an NDA when I got my developer's id for their
> developer network.)
I don't believe that their NDA is the same on OS X (I thought that I
remember it referring to the documentation itself and other secrets
they tell you about, not the full range of everything which the iPhone
NDA covers) - or, if it is, perhaps they've released a statement for
the OS X NDA which clarifies it to allow open source. Indeed, there
are several portions of OS X itself which are open sourced (notably
WebKit/WebCore/Safari). Plus, according to the NDA for the iPhone,
the only portions you can't disclose are those portions which are not
"documented elsewhere." Perhaps it is the case that the Aqua classes
are documented elsewhere.
> While there are "solutions" to these (special license, plugin...), the
> big issue I have with all of this is that we see developers come and go.
> If a project is thus "orphaned" will someone be able to get the all
> source to it? If so, how and under what conditions? Is it also
> restricted by NDA?
I would imagine that it's possible to allow sharing between multiple
people who are under the same NDA. If not, then whole coder teams in
Apple's corporate partners would not be allowed to cooperate on
projects. Or maybe the corporate NDA allows for different such
situations (there is a $99 personal developer fee and a $399
enterprise level). Maybe it would be good to have the enterprise
> Currently, there is one iPhone interface that does not have this
> problem: web 2.0 browser interface. If the BibleTool or something like
> it were adapted for small devices with "grade A" browser support, that
> would be fantastic.
As I understand it, the iPhone version of Safari is completely unique
in its dual-faced implementation of a browser. It tries to imitate a
full desktop-style browser and then just display the size of the
iPhone screen at one time. However, you can also design a web app to
work specifically with the mobile version of Safari and look almost
exactly like a native app. To do so is slightly beyond my ken with
toolkits I've used which would make it quite possible. However, it
would certainly require a redesign of the whole BibleTool interface.
> In Him,
> sword-devel mailing list: sword-devel at crosswire.org
> Instructions to unsubscribe/change your settings at above page
More information about the sword-devel