I use Reachability Swift cocoa pod in my project, which is completely free in use and distribute. Should I separately specify the license of the cocoa pod in Xcode, or is it done with the installation of the cocoa pod?
CocoaPods provides tools to review the license of pods, but nothing further with regards to managing or complying with licenses - that's up to you.
Without being an expert:
Apache2.0 and MIT licenses are non-restrictive. Apache 2.0 is inspired by MIT, but uses more stringent legal jargon.
The GNU license specifies that you redistribute the source code. This is tricky, as the app store provides no mechanism for this. Generally avoided for iOS apps.
Some licenses require attribution in your app's documentation.
To complicate things, there are numerous versions of the Reachability pod, all seem to be inspired by each other, and have different licenses.
Don't take this as legal advice, but probably nobody is looking or cares anyway.
Related
we have developed a kernel extension (KEXT) for a virtual file system (VFS) on macOS to integrate our software with external programs like Adobe InDesign or Microsoft Word. Our software and the KEXT are used by many of our customers.
As it looks like KEXTs are deprecated and may be removed completely in future versions of macOS, particularly on Apple Silicon based computers. See e.g. Apple's announcement in its security guide:
"This is why developers are being strongly encouraged to adopt system extensions before kext support is removed from macOS for future Mac computers with Apple silicon"
Therefore we are currently investigating in possible alternatives.
Apple suggests to migrate to System Extensions instead of KEXTs. However, the only VFS related API we found is to implement a File Provider that is based on an NSFileProviderReplicatedExtension.
Unfortunately that NSFileProviderReplicatedExtension has several flaws:
Files can either be in the cloud or downloaded. It is not possible to download/read only a portion of a file. This is a big performance problem for us, since we work with large images (> 1GB). The programs we integrate with typically only read a part of the image, e.g. the embedded preview. The API does not offer a way to access selected blocks of a file (random access file).
The File Provider learns about the file system content via enumerators. So everything that is inside a folder must be enumerated (listed) first. Otherwise it cannot be accessed. However, we cannot enumerate our VFS. Most of the content of our VFS is fully dynamic. It only exists when it is accessed by a client the first time. Such dynamic content also includes dynamic parameters like the client's locale or the size of a box where the image will be placed. Since we do not know those parameters in advance, we cannot enumerate the VFS's content in advance.
This means, an NSFileProviderReplicatedExtension in its current state isn't a replacement for a "real" VFS and therefore cannot be used by us as a replacement for our current VFS KEXT.
My questions:
Will Apple allow kernel extensions also in future versions of (Apple Silicon/M1 based) operating systems? Or is there at least a clear deadline?
If not, what is Apple's officially suggested replacement for KEXT based VFS solutions?
Will the API of an NSFileProviderReplicatedExtension be improved to behave like a "real" file system so that above mentioned flaws will no longer be an issue?
Many thanks for any answers or comments!
Best regards,
Michael
Will Apple allow kernel extensions also in future versions of (Apple Silicon/M1 based) operating systems? Or is there at least a clear deadline?
Apple doesn't really give timelines, and they also occasionally break promises of support.
However, this sort of hard API deprecation and removal usually is done as part of a major release, so you will typically get deprecation notice for it at WWDC one year, users might start seeing deprecation notices when the .0 of the OS release ships at the earliest, and sometimes the .3 or .4 revision. Then you'll typically be told at the next WWDC that the API is blocked in the upcoming release, so by that point you should have implemented a replacement.
If not, what is Apple's officially suggested replacement for KEXT based VFS solutions?
As far as I'm aware, NSFileProviderReplicatedExtension is currently the only one.
Will the API of an NSFileProviderReplicatedExtension be improved to behave like a "real" file system so that above mentioned flaws will no longer be an issue?
Other than via beta SDKs, Apple generally doesn't pre-announce future APIs.
My advice:
File issues for each of the file provider shortcomings you are hitting using Feedback Assistant. (Radar)
File an "enhancement request" feedback issue with Apple for a "real" file system API replacement for the VFS KPI.
If your vfs kext is critical to your business/product, I suggest additionally asking Apple's DTS via a TSI what they recommend for your situation. Reference the feedback IDs of the issues filed, otherwise they will recommend that you file issues.
I am quite confused as to the proper way of distributing Bonjour as a part of a Windows application that would publish a service for a client iOS app.
No matter how much I google around, I cannot find a clear how-to guide. It would be great if someone could provide guidelines.
The main reasons of my confusion are:
Is it mandatory to distribute the entire bonjour Win SDK as a part of my Win application?
Since Apple provides source code to build mDNSResponder.exe, is it sufficient to only distribute such file along with dns-sd.dll?
What is the intended purpose of providing sources for mDNSResponder.exe otherwise?
What is the recommended way to handle the possibility of having Bonjour already installed on the system?
Also, where can I find the latest Bonjour SDK (3.x I guess?), I can only find 2.0.4. Is it only accessible if I am enrolled in the OSX developer program? (I am enrolled in iOS developer program for now.)
Many thanks.
This is information I gathered from various sources, including communications with official Apple support. I report it in the way I believe to be accurate, I hope it can be useful (no liability assumed!).
For Bonjour-enabled Windows application you have basically two main options:
Bundle the Bonjour Installer with your application (which is not the Bonjour SDK, the SDK if for your own developer use only).
If you choose to do so, the Bonjour installer must be called from your own installer during the installation process. The possibility of Bonjour being already installed in the system is totally handled by the Bonjour installer.
And here come some bad news: you must include de Bonjour Logo on your physical distribution medium (like a DVD cover sleeve) according to the Apple guidelines specified in the Windows Bundling Agreement, and you need Apple approval before distributing your product.
Do not bundle. I.e., do not distribute Bonjour with your application but simply use it if already present in the system. If you do not distribute Bonjour in any form the whole Windows Bundling Agreement simply does not apply. You application should search for the dnssd.dll and load it dynamically if found.
Consider that most of Windows users would have Bonjour already installed due to the fact that some popular apps use it (for example iTunes and Skype).
While the source code of Bonjour is released under an open-source library (Apache License, Version 2.0) this does not require Apple to do anything. In particular, they do not need to document how you'd use this license.
The license allows you to use and adapt Apple's source code, including its copyright, but not including its trademark "Bonjour(TM)". Since this is the standard Apache license, you don't have the requirement either to show the trademark.
So, to answer your questions:
No, you can build your own version of Bonjour from source and use that under the Apache license. You can't call it Bonjour, but why do you need a name in the first place? "mDNS" would be a reasonable choice, possibly prefixed with your trademark.
It seems sufficient to distribute the DLL and EXE. Arranging how they find each other might benefit from some tailoring, so your own build of Bonjour doesn't clash with Apple's.
(I won't speculate on Apple's motives)
The design problem here is that Bonjour acts as a system service, and services are inherently singletons. If you install it unmodified, Apple wouldn't be able to install its own build. That's not a legal problem, probably, but it is a bad customer experience. Installing your own build as a distinct service would avoid the clash, allowing both versions to co-exist.
(Resource request, off-topic)
Does anyone know library to browse (and upload/download/stream) on smb shares (SMB/CIFS protocol) from iOS. This must be support for all the Windows OS. This is grade help for me.
Not quite an answer to your question, but I have some tips:
If you write your own client, don't trust the IETF RFC. Microsoft
hasn't been scrupulous in its adherence to the spec. And be sure to
test with Unicode file/folder names, all major versions of Windows,
and so on.
Don't write your own client. :-)
If you use an open-source library, make sure it's not GPL or LGPL,
unless you plan to open-source your entire project. LGPL almost
works—it does on Mac OS X—but it requires dynamic linking, which
isn't supported on iOS.
You may see apps in the app store that use GPL or LGPL libraries,
but don't assume that it is safe to use them yourself. Those apps
are often blatantly abusing the license.
opensource.apple.com has an smb client that's a great reference but
it's a file system kernel extension, so you can't use it directly.
I'm looking for a desktop publishing platform for Mac, Windows, and Linux that is closely tied to PhoneGap in terms of the concept. I know that there's Titanium for Desktop (TideSDK?) but as far as I've used it before, it requires the end-users to download a big 70mb-ish runtime file once. What I liked about PhoneGap is that it doesn't require any of that (it works out of the box). I'm looking for something similar, only, instead of being meant for the mobile development, it 's targeted at desktop application development.
Perhaps I failed to mention it but if you are not aware of what I'm specifically talking about, I'm talking about an environment of sort that will let me code via an HTML base and output a native for said platforms. Both TideSDK and PhoneGap does this.
I would highly recommend giving TideSDK another chance, I have developed large, data driven applications on it in the past, and deployed to OSX and Windows and have personally been very satisfied with it. Also, it is now an open source project managed and maintained by a very good team with some oversight and help from Appcelerator (the original creators).
Theyre are two benefits to TideSDk as I see it:
License - TideSDK is open source licensed under a liberal Apache 2.0 license. As opposed to QT which is under the restrictive GNU Lesser Public, and commercial license.
Power - TideSDK allows you to leverage native API's (like phonegap) but access them in your favorite programming language (well, choose between Ruby, PHP, and Python). Your only options with QT are C++.
As for what you said about the 70MB runtime, this is not true, I built the runtime in with my last project, and the binary I gave to my clients (OSX) was only 15.3MB.
Hope this helps you come to a decision.
There is a way to run a PhoneGap HTML5 App on the Desktop with the help of Adobe AIR like described here: http://www.tricedesigns.com/2012/02/17/repurposing-phonegap-apps-as-desktop-apps/
But I am also looking for a less bloaty approach. Maybe based on Xulrunner/Prism/WebRT thing (or Chrome).
Tidesdk is the easiest, xml file is almost identical to the phonegap, provides powerful api and the best part you can package your app with runtime. I think you should stick to tidesdk.
I was looking for the same and found this implementation for windows ony: https://github.com/davejohnson/phonegap-windows
I did not tried it though.
Why is it that some Mac Apps are perfectly happy to be simply copied into the /Applications folder, and others require installation-wizard software? Are there advantages to the wizards?
You may be interested in what Apple has to say on the subject. This is in Software Delivery Guide.
In particular, check out the two chapters Manual installs and Managed installs.
Some of the points in favor of package installers are:
support for custom installs
support for pre and post operations, such as quitting app and daemons before upgrading
In some cases it is necessary for an application to install support files in other locations; for example, some programs add libraries in "/usr/local/lib" or add binaries in "/usr/local/bin"; others need to install support files in "/Library/Frameworks" or in "/Library/Application Support". For those situations, using the *.pkg and *.mpkg installers is really the best solution available, since dragging and dropping the app won't cut it.
That said, if it is possible to simply drop your application into "/Applications", then distributing a ".dmg" file with your application in it and with instructions to drag-and-drop it to "/Applications" is a much better way of distributing your application than to rely on the "*.pkg" and "*.mpkg" installers. There are also some major downsides to using the *.pkg and *.mpkg installers... they can very easily clobber permissions and destroy important system files, so a drag-and-drop solution is much safer, simpler, and cleaner.