360iDev: Ansca Mobile's Corona SDK

Sorry but your just spinning your wheels..

A) Apple can easily fingerprint code as coming from your hack simply by the static portion of the output that is unique to your "product"

B) if you cannot read the 3.3.1 section lemme rephrase for you.. "originally written in C, C++, Objective C, or javascript" most definitely does NOT include Lua, Actionscript, VB, C#, F#, Logo, Pascal, Python, Ruby, PHP or any other language..


Based purely on B) no matter what your doing to the LUA after the user writes it.. you are in violation of the terms.. What your in fact saying is Wink Wink Nudge Nudge because our output is a mapped output from lua to objective C/C, Apple cannot detect it so your safe..

That is NOT an assurance in any way shape or form that will hold water, I suggest that you guys should probably not have "assumed" that you where good to go, and actually talked to apple before starting the project (much like adobe should have done with CS5 flash nonsense)


In other news, your linked blog? is EXACTLY why Apple made the move it did.. they have been there before with companies thinking that they are "special" enough that the rules do not apply to them.. and the actual fact of the matter is this.. omg no, not a big software company has to actually learn how to write in C rather than hacking shit together in lua? The problem with your logic is that APple has been in this situation before with "key developers" forcing them to make changes/not make changes to things, and they would rather stop that perception from starting on iphone/ipod/ipad..

So no, you will be shut down and looking from the outside in, no amount of OMG BUT EA USES LUA is gonna save you from this, i suggest you suck it up, move on, and stop lying to people .. which you and I both know is what you are doing right now.. You know damn well that Apple has told you to "find a new business model your not welcome here", and your assurances to customers are simply a desperate plee to stay around.. on the backs of unsuspecting retards who where using your product in the first place.

You can argue all day with us about the validity, choice, evilness, etc of Apple's decision... when you start lying to people to protect your business model.. and implying that your "secret sauce" will let YOUR illegal product work, in the face of adobe's being outlawed? You go from "that sucks for them" empathy, to "Hopefully apple crushes them to bits and makes it impossible for anyone who works for them or uses their tools to play in the app store sandbox anymore EVER.

If someone writes a bunch of C code, and you later extend it to create your app, it's still originally C, even if you extend it in another language. The clause is silly and unenforceable.

If I write a Python application on top of a C library, I wouldn't consider that a C application, would you? The library may be original C, but the Application is not.

As far as the clause, it is what it is, and it's quite clear as to it's intent with the examples give. It's amount of "silliness" relates to whether someone chooses to play at all. However, if you choose to play, it seems all of this corner casing and end run loophole searching is counter productive.