IIRC, for Mac App Store apps, your app has to perform copy-protection checking itself (i.e, receipt checking); Apple specifically didn’t want to do that themselves so that when the inevitable crack appears in the wild, it doesn’t take out the whole app store - just the apps that the particular crack applies to.
iOS, I believe, is different. (it’s been a while since I watched the relevant WWDC videos, though; and I haven’t had to implement such receipt checking myself yet, so take that with appropriate quantities of NaCl). ****************************************************** I am not a lawyer, nor do I play one on TV, but… I **think** that this section (taken from v3.0 of the LGPL): > 4. Combined Works. > You may convey a Combined Work under terms of your choice that, taken > together, effectively do not restrict modification of the portions of the > Library contained in the Combined Work and reverse engineering for debugging > such modifications, if you also do each of the following: > > • a) Give prominent notice with each copy of the Combined Work that the > Library is used in it and that the Library and its use are covered by this > License. > • b) Accompany the Combined Work with a copy of the GNU GPL and this > license document. > • c) For a Combined Work that displays copyright notices during > execution, include the copyright notice for the Library among these notices, > as well as a reference directing the user to the copies of the GNU GPL and > this license document. > • d) Do one of the following: > • 0) Convey the Minimal Corresponding Source under the terms of > this License, and the Corresponding Application Code in a form suitable for, > and under terms that permit, the user to recombine or relink the Application > with a modified version of the Linked Version to produce a modified Combined > Work, in the manner specified by section 6 of the GNU GPL for conveying > Corresponding Source. > • 1) Use a suitable shared library mechanism for linking with > the Library. A suitable mechanism is one that (a) uses at run time a copy of > the Library already present on the user's computer system, and (b) will > operate properly with a modified version of the Library that is > interface-compatible with the Linked Version. > ...means that the user must be able to modify and re-compile the library, and re-link the executable in toto, and (assuming that no errors were made during the modification phase) have the combined product run. Any code-signing or DRM system that prevented this, would to my eye, seem to violate the LGPL. ****************************************************** The current version of the Apple Developer Program Agreement states in section 3.3.2 that MAS apps can run plugins, so I would presume that a sandboxed, code-signed MAS app can, in fact, load them. I haven’t actually tried it though (my apps that have a plug-in system, although code-signed, aren’t sandboxed MAS apps). Also, now that I think about it… FWIW, wasn’t there a linker flag that told the system where to look for .dylibs? _______________________________________________ Cocoa-dev mailing list (Cocoa-dev@lists.apple.com) Please do not post admin requests or moderator comments to the list. Contact the moderators at cocoa-dev-admins(at)lists.apple.com Help/Unsubscribe/Update your Subscription: https://lists.apple.com/mailman/options/cocoa-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com This email sent to arch...@mail-archive.com
