Sherry Haibara wrote:About the first thing, I was clearly ironic. But hey, people around here just don't know what sarcasm is.
Actually, sarcasm and irony are concepts which highly depend on cultural background, do not carry well through written media, and are heavily influenced by language barriers, too.
I.e. what seems to be "clearly ironic" may seem to be "clearly insulting" to somebody else, and vice versa. Personally, I love and use sarcasm & irony (two very different things, btw) a lot in personal communications, but as a general rule of thumb, I can only recommend against using irony & sarcasm in internet forums, because of the above mentioned problems.
Sherry Haibara wrote:About the second thing: it seems that the whole problem is about "legal issues", right?
But aren't you just breaking the rules by making ScummVM a jailbroken app?
You are using an unofficial toolchain, which is not Apple-authorized; moreover, you are actually suggesting that people who want to use ScummVM need to break the rules jailbreaking their devices.
Isn't this just an enormous nonsense?
If you have legal questions about the execution of interpreted code, then e-mail Apple engineers and ask 'em, or open a topic in the Apple forums.
Sherry Haibara
It's a tad more complicated than that. We explained in previous posts in this thread and elsewhere what technical issues there are.
As to the legal issues: Apple can not prohibit anybody from using a compiler tool chain for producing binaries we like, nor can they legally prevent us from distributing binaries, as long as those do not infringe with any of their terms, NDAs, etc.. In particular, we are not violating any agreement we have signed.
However, the moment we want to distribute stuff through the app store, we have to enter a contract relationship with Apple. Implying that we have to agree to be bound by the terms of the app store and to uphold all requirements imposed by it. Legally, ScummVM (and Frotz, and other apps) are incompatible with those terms, hence it is impossible for us (and them) to actually uphold them. If Apple lets it slip by, unofficially saying it's OK, then that's sad -- because then, why do they not just change their stupid terms to something sane?