Check out Jerry's new videos -- REV to ObjC -> iPhone

[Randall Lee Reetz]

There is no technical reason that rev would have to export any pre-compiled code objects or libraries.  Now, if what you aren't saying but meaning, is that rev would expose its internal data model and that this could expose the company to piracy of core IP, well that is an issue that should be expressed openly.  The fact that any xtalk environment holds very little claim to deeply dependable IP is certainly true.  When you don't own your core IP, the only option is to be better than other xtalk IDEs.

The courts have repeatedly told apple that they too must compete through consumer choice because their IP claims are unfounded (xerox owns that).

  

-----Original Message-----
From: Colin Holgate <coiin at verizon.net>
Sent: Sunday, May 09, 2010 3:40 PM
To: How to use Revolution <use-revolution at lists.runrev.com>
Subject: Re: Check out Jerry's new videos -- REV to ObjC -> iPhone


On May 9, 2010, at 6:21 PM, Randall Lee Reetz wrote:

> No it isn't and I will be willing to bet a large sum that apple's only desire is to control the compiling process.

Amongst the many companies still worried about all this is Unity3D. When you make iPhone apps with Unity, you do the compile using Xcode, from Objective-C source files. But in amongst that Objective-C is the Mono system, which is what is used to convert your C# or Javascript to control your 3D scene. Essentially the same situation Rev would be facing. So, as currently written, the agreement blocks Unity, regardless of the fact that it's being compiled in Xcode from Objective-C source.


>  And, importantly, they can not legally go beyond this level of control

And that might be part of the reason that the government will sue them.



_______________________________________________
use-revolution mailing list
use-revolution at lists.runrev.com
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription preferences:
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-revolution