We have Gruber's interpretation of a complex legal document, taken completely out of the context in which "Application" is defined. Lawyers don't get paid big bucks to interpret this stuff for nothing.
We have Gruber's interpretation of a complex legal document, taken completely out of the context in which "Application" is defined. Lawyers don't get paid big bucks to interpret this stuff for nothing.
Legal texts aren't software; it's actually in the best interest of Apple to define things as broad and vaguely as possible so they cover a large spectrum.
I think Gruber's interpretation is one that any person reading the document will have.
Not necessarily. See: http://andreyf.tumblr.com/post/508678742/stop-interpreting-l...
But if the author is counting on "not using the SDK" altogether then basically your whole developer agreement with Apple is void since the whole purpose was to develop "applications". And if the agreement is void there is no reason for Apple to accept your stuff on AppStore.