Dark Reading is part of the Informa Tech Division of Informa PLC

This site is operated by a business or businesses owned by Informa PLC and all copyright resides with them.Informa PLC's registered office is 5 Howick Place, London SW1P 1WG. Registered in England and Wales. Number 8860726.

Risk

4/9/2010
01:49 PM
Connect Directly
Google+
LinkedIn
Twitter
RSS
E-Mail
50%
50%

Apple Bans Some iPhone Development Tools

Developers are struggling to understand whether anything other than Apple's development tools will be allowed.

In conjunction with the release of a beta version of its forthcoming iPhone 4.0 SDK on Thursday, Apple dropped a bombshell: It revised its iPhone Developer Program License Agreement in a way that appears to ban most third-party development tools.

The salient sentence in the changed portion of the License Agreement, Section 3.3.1, reads as follows:

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).

What these words mean, specifically Apple's interpretation of the language and the steps the company will take to enforce its interpretation, remains open to question. As written, Apple appears to deny programmers the right to write code for its iPhone, iPod touch, and iPad in any language other than Objective-C, C, C++, or JavaScript.

It could be argued that "applications" are not the same as "source code," which would mean that Apple is only concerned with compiled code. But Mark Methenitis, an attorney with The Vernon Law Group, said in an e-mail, "[The phrase 'originally written'] makes it problematic for any software that allows the code to be written in another language before moving to the iPhone platform. To me, originally written means before compilation."

Apple did not respond to repeated requests for further information.

The new agreement has incensed some developers, specifically those who rely on third-party development tools. Complaints about the contractual language have prompted Apple to lock discussion threads on its developer forums and to direct developers to communicate with the company through its developer contact page.

Frustrated developers, denied any official clarification, have again taken to protesting by way of bug reports. "Current SDK terms reduce desirability of iPhone OS as development platform," is the title of one recent bug report posted on Open Radar, a site set up to create a public repository of bug reports submitted to Apple -- something the company does not make public. The developer calls the terms "unprecedented" and "overreaching" and asks that they be changed.

Previous
1 of 2
Next
Comment  | 
Print  | 
More Insights
Comments
Newest First  |  Oldest First  |  Threaded View
97% of Americans Can't Ace a Basic Security Test
Steve Zurier, Contributing Writer,  5/20/2019
TeamViewer Admits Breach from 2016
Dark Reading Staff 5/20/2019
How a Manufacturing Firm Recovered from a Devastating Ransomware Attack
Kelly Jackson Higgins, Executive Editor at Dark Reading,  5/20/2019
Register for Dark Reading Newsletters
White Papers
Video
Cartoon Contest
Current Issue
Building and Managing an IT Security Operations Program
As cyber threats grow, many organizations are building security operations centers (SOCs) to improve their defenses. In this Tech Digest you will learn tips on how to get the most out of a SOC in your organization - and what to do if you can't afford to build one.
Flash Poll
Twitter Feed
Dark Reading - Bug Report
Bug Report
Enterprise Vulnerabilities
From DHS/US-CERT's National Vulnerability Database
CVE-2019-5798
PUBLISHED: 2019-05-23
Lack of correct bounds checking in Skia in Google Chrome prior to 73.0.3683.75 allowed a remote attacker to perform an out of bounds memory read via a crafted HTML page.
CVE-2019-5799
PUBLISHED: 2019-05-23
Incorrect inheritance of a new document's policy in Content Security Policy in Google Chrome prior to 73.0.3683.75 allowed a remote attacker to bypass content security policy via a crafted HTML page.
CVE-2019-5800
PUBLISHED: 2019-05-23
Insufficient policy enforcement in Blink in Google Chrome prior to 73.0.3683.75 allowed a remote attacker to bypass content security policy via a crafted HTML page.
CVE-2019-5801
PUBLISHED: 2019-05-23
Incorrect eliding of URLs in Omnibox in Google Chrome on iOS prior to 73.0.3683.75 allowed a remote attacker to perform domain spoofing via a crafted HTML page.
CVE-2019-5802
PUBLISHED: 2019-05-23
Incorrect handling of download origins in Navigation in Google Chrome prior to 73.0.3683.75 allowed a remote attacker to perform domain spoofing via a crafted HTML page.