iPhone 3G?

[epsy]

and the finished product: some armagetron without input neither output
w00t

[Pathetique]

and the finished product: some armagetron without input neither output
w00t

I don't quite understand why you're so against this idea, but I'm certainly not okay with being mocked like this. If you don't have anything further to say that is constructive and helpful, then I suggest you keep off this thread.

As a clarification, what I meant was, we would compile the ported version of armagetron with everything intact, and then when we go to release the source code to it, we would have to remove all Apple-proprietary code from the source, and state that due to license restrictions, we couldn't release the Apple code that we used in it, but provided an overview of how it was used to give someone who may want to compile it on their own an idea of how we did it.

[epsy]

3.3.14 If Your Application includes any FOSS, You agree to comply with all applicable FOSS licensing terms.

Ok, let's say we go with the GPL and respect it's rules...

You also agree not to use any FOSS in the development of Your Application in such a way that would cause the non-FOSS portions of the Apple Software to be subject to any FOSS licensing terms or obligations.

Ooh that's quite some cryptic stuff here..
So..if my FOSS software i'm writing armagetron in needs me to have the Apple APIs to be licenced under some FOSS license i can't use any FOSS to dev my app (vim/gVim are FOSS, se we're doomed)
i dont really see how it's the FOSS used in the developpement of Your Application that will affect anything, especially since a FOSS can't force it's user to license the generated content under some license

....except...if the FOSS is throwing parts of itself in the actual software, which then would require that softsware to be licensed under [in our example] the GPL, and also everything that's linked to it

it still indeed doesn't mean that if you write FOSS and need the linked parts [ Apple's API ] anything of this will apply,
but i've seen nothing yet that says you can change Apple's API licence to fit your license's distribution conditions

there's nothing which allows us to do this here

Aero just pointed out that all that we would have to do is remove anything that is Apple's property. So any of the touch events would be removed, and any references to the CoreFoundations stuff would also be removed, and would allow us to keep the GPL license valid and still obey the Apple License.

ok...what we got for Apple APIs..oh..everything..all user interaction...all the visual output, all the sound output, too
you'll tell me that all this stuff will be soon reverse-engineered
i'm sure Apple will be very happy about that

[Pathetique]

As a clarification, what I meant was, we would compile the ported version of armagetron with everything intact, and then when we go to release the source code to it, we would have to remove all Apple-proprietary code from the source, and state that due to license restrictions, we couldn't release the Apple code that we used in it, but provided an overview of how it was used to give someone who may want to compile it on their own an idea of how we did it.

[epsy]

As a clarification, what I meant was, we would compile the ported version of armagetron with everything intact, and then when we go to release the source code to it, we would have to remove all Apple-proprietary code from the source, and state that due to license restrictions, we couldn't release the Apple code that we used in it, but provided an overview of how it was used to give someone who may want to compile it on their own an idea of how we did it.

That would violate the GPL, if we distribute a binary, we must be able to distribute the source, too

[Lucifer]

As a clarification, what I meant was, we would compile the ported version of armagetron with everything intact, and then when we go to release the source code to it, we would have to remove all Apple-proprietary code from the source, and state that due to license restrictions, we couldn't release the Apple code that we used in it, but provided an overview of how it was used to give someone who may want to compile it on their own an idea of how we did it.

That would violate the GPL, if we distribute a binary, we must be able to distribute the source, too

And the source must match the binary. I.e. if someone uses an identical build chain to us, then his compiled binary should have the same md5sum as ours. So we can't just remove anything we don't want.

There are options, but generally speaking, the options aren't usually worth pursuing, and we'd need a lawyer to parse the GPL and Apple's license.

The best option, imo, is to not support the device unless Apple is willing to support our efforts.

[Pathetique]

Huzzah! Someone who makes sense!

Thanks for clarifying that, Lucifer. I was starting to get frustrated with these shenanigans.

I agree, for now things are best left until Apple becomes more Open Source friendly. Oh well.

[aE]

This may be a noob question but is there any way to use a compromised open source license that would bridge between the Apple NDA and a FOSS license, or is Armagetron Advanced tied to a GPL license? For example the BSD liscense:

These licenses are permissive in that they place the bare minimum of restrictions on subsequent development and distribution. Using these licenses is as close to releasing into the public domain as FOSS licenses get. These are not copyleft licenses— they do nothing to preserve free software rights in downstream versions. Moreover, these licenses do not require source code distribution. If you choose a permissive license, other developers can incorporate your permissive-licensed code into their closed-source, proprietary product, and they can effectively conceal the modifications they made to your code.

[Lucifer]

GPL.

[Pathetique]

So I decided I'd read through the GPL and I found something of interest to this thread...

1. Source Code.

The “source code” for a work means the preferred form of the work for making modifications to it. “Object code” means any non-source form of a work.

A “Standard Interface” means an interface that either is an official standard defined by a recognized standards body, or, in the case of interfaces specified for a particular programming language, one that is widely used among developers working in that language.

The “System Libraries” of an executable work include anything, other than the work as a whole, that (a) is included in the normal form of packaging a Major Component, but which is not part of that Major Component, and (b) serves only to enable use of the work with that Major Component, or to implement a Standard Interface for which an implementation is available to the public in source code form. A “Major Component”, in this context, means a major essential component (kernel, window system, and so on) of the specific operating system (if any) on which the executable work runs, or a compiler used to produce the work, or an object code interpreter used to run it.

The “Corresponding Source” for a work in object code form means all the source code needed to generate, install, and (for an executable work) run the object code and to modify the work, including scripts to control those activities. However, it does not include the work's System Libraries, or general-purpose tools or generally available free programs which are used unmodified in performing those activities but which are not part of the work. For example, Corresponding Source includes interface definition files associated with source files for the work, and the source code for shared libraries and dynamically linked subprograms that the work is specifically designed to require, such as by intimate data communication or control flow between those subprograms and other parts of the work.

The Corresponding Source need not include anything that users can regenerate automatically from other parts of the Corresponding Source.

The Corresponding Source for a work in source code form is that same work.

If I'm interpreting it correctly, it seems to me that it states that everything that counts as a Standard Library, which in our case would be anything that Apple provides to people who obtain the iPhone SDK, is not bound by the GPL license.

To quote our favorite section of the iPhone SDK Agreement...

3.3.14 If Your Application includes any FOSS, You agree to comply with all applicable FOSS licensing terms. You also agree not to use any FOSS in the development of Your Application in such a way that would cause the non-FOSS portions of the SDK to be subject to any FOSS licensing terms of obligations.

So if the GPL doesn't apply to Standard Libraries, which count as any form of library provided by Apple in the iPhone SDK, then we're in the green for compiling and distributing a binary in the App Store, and for keeping to the GPL and providing the source code to it on the armagetronad.net website.

-- Evan

P.S.: My mom works at a law firm, so I'll see if I can get one of the lawyers there to parse the GPL and the Apple iPhone SDK Agreement each in its entirety.

P.P.S.: I didn't see anywhere in the agreement mentions of this "non-disclosure agreement" that was mentioned earlier.

[Pathetique]

Upon further inspection, I have found no conflict of interest between the GNU General Public License and the Apple iPhone SDK Agreement. And with SDL either having been or being ported to iPhone and iPod Touch as we speak, it looks like barely any modification to the source code is needed! I think we're in business...

I've purchased OS X 10.5 Leopard and is on its way to my house. I'll actually be able to install the SDK and run it and try compiling Arma for iPhone.

[voodoo]

Yes you will be able to try to compile arma, but you will face a bunch of errors. So be ready to :

- wait for the publication of SDL source code as the guy porting SDL can't publish them because there are conflicts between GPL and SDK agreement as stated in many pages on the web for example :
http://www.linux.com/feature/131752

- rewrite the opengl code cause opengles is a subset of opengl. It does not support many gl functions. There's part of code to rewrite if rFont.cpp, rDisplayList.cpp, rTexture.cpp, ... basically almost every rendering part.

- rewrite the user interface code (input, probably menu as well)

- freetype and ftgl have to be ported too if you plan to port 0.3.x

These 4 points are the main source of errors you will face for now.

I started it on my comp but all is in stand by until SDL is available which will be after the NDA is removed which will not be before the release of iphone 3G and SDK (non beta) if it ever happens.

Good luck and have fun

[Pathetique]

Heh...sounds like I have a decent amount to learn sooner than later to make that happen.

A cool idea that Paladin had was the ability to draw 3/4ths of a circle in the direction you want to turn to do a triple? Or half a circle to do a doublebind in the direction of the circle?

[Zero V2]

You can't use 3rd-party software with the iPhone, end of.

Correction: You can't use Third Party software with the IPhone legally. =P

[epsy]

IPhone 3G Jailbreak Released, Paves Way For Open Source Apps
now i have no clue if that's legal or not