Software Developers (Developers) who build iOS Applications (Apps) for use on Apple devices must adhere to strict requirements set by Apple.
There are a number of licences which provide for development and distribution of Apps, including:
- the Apple Developer Agreement;
- the Apple Developer Program Licence Agreement; and
- the Apple Developer Enterprise Program Licence (ADEPL).
These licences can be viewed on the Apple website, (however you must first sign in using an Apple ID).
App Store Review Guidelines
Apple exercises a high degree of control over the development of Apps for its iOS platform (which operates on Apple iPhones, iPads, and other mobile devices). The App Store Review Guidelines (ASRG) contain a prescriptive list of requirements, written in plain English, which must be met before Apple will allow an App to be submitted to its “App Store“.
Unless an iOS device has been ‘jailbroken’, the device will only run applications which have been digitally signed by software developers authorised by Apple. Therefore, before an App can be distributed via Apple’s App Store or “B2B Store”, the applications must be submitted to Apple for review and approval. Apple will reject any Apps that they consider, amongst other things:
- to be unreliable;
- does not perform as expected; or
- to contain offensive material.
Some have questioned whether there is a way to circumnavigate the review and approval process by developing Apps under the Apple Developer Enterprise Program Licence (ADEPL). The consequences of this are discussed below.
Apple Developer Enterprise Program License
The ADEPL is a program designed to allow organisations to develop and deploy custom iOS applications for use solely within their own organisation. Apps distributed using the ADEPL are not required to be submitted to Apple for review and approval before distribution, which has raised questions about whether this licence can be utilised to distribute Apps without Apple’s scrutiny.
Unfortunately, Apps distributed under the ADEPL are limited by the terms of the ADEPL to be used only within the organisation for which it is developed. In other words, the ADEPL cannot be used to commercially distribute iOS applications to the public. This conclusion is partially based on the following provisions found in the ADEPL agreement:
- “Internal Use Application” means a program “… that is developed by You on a custom basis for Your own business purposes … solely for internal use by Your Employees or Permitted Users, or as otherwise expressly permitted …” and which specifically excludes “any programs or applications that may be used, distributed, or otherwise made available to other companies …”
- the “Purpose” preamble states: “If You want to distribute applications for iOS, watchOS or tvOS to third parties or obtain an application from a third party, then You must use the App Store or B2B Program for distribution.”
- Clause 7 of the ADEPL also prohibits the distribution of applications developed using the Apple Software, except as permitted by the ADEPL.
Consequences of breaching the ADEPL
If Apple became aware that a user was commercially distributing iOS applications in breach of the ADEPL, it may terminate the agreement with the Developer for breaching its terms. Apple could also revoke any digital certificates that were used to sign an application for distribution. Either way there are significant adverse consequences for the Developer and their client.
Therefore if a Developer wishes to distribute an application for commercial purposes, distribution via the App or B2B Store, in compliance with Apple’s term and conditions, would be the safest course of action.
What does this mean for Developers?
In combination, the stringent controls Apple exercises over the App and B2B store, coupled with the limited availability of the ADEPL, result in a strictly controlled platform for all budding Developers looking to distribute their Apps on iOS devices.
There is no way distribute iOS applications without first having them approved by Apple. Therefore, it is imperative that Developers understand the rights and obligations that arise from any agreement with Apple and the consequences of violating such agreements.
Further information about software development law
If you require further information about whether your App complies with the Apple Developer Program Licence or you require a bespoke EULA that complies with Apple’s requirements, contact us for a confidential and obligation-free discussion:
Malcolm Burrows B.Bus.,MBA.,LL.B.,LL.M.,MQLS.
Legal Practice Director
T: +61 7 3221 0013 (preferred)
M: +61 419 726 535
E: mburrows@dundaslawyers.com.au
Disclaimer
This article contains general commentary only. You should not rely on the commentary as legal advice. Specific legal advice should be obtained to ascertain how the law applies to your particular circumstances.
Related insights about software development law
-
Evidence from the Wayback Machine accepted
Australian Courts are increasingly considering the use of evidence from the Wayback Machine, but questions remain as to whether they will accept such reports in practice and what will be allowed?
-
$750k awarded for fake online reviews
The Supreme Court of South Australia awarded $A750,000 in damages to a lawyer in the case of Cheng v Lok [2020] SASC 14, demonstrating the serious consequences of posting fake reviews online. Find out more about the implications of this case and alternative legal actions for companies that receive negative reviews.
-
Adaptations and computer code – copyright issues
An adaption in copyright is the exclusive right of the owner of the work in question. Section 10 of the Copyright Act 1968 (Cth) (Act) defines adaption as it relates to literary works in dramatic and non-dramatic forms, in a computer program and in relation to a musical work. The rights that apply to adaptions…
-
Computer code libraries and copyright ownership
The Australian case of Redrock Holdings Pty Ltd and Hotline Communications Ltd v Hinkley [2001] VSC 91 has shed light on how the ownership of copyright in code libraries is determined. Learn more about the dispute and its implications for copyright ownership in this blog post.
-
e-Signatures – legally binding on companies?
E-signatures are becoming increasingly popular, but are they legally binding? Find out in this article, which examines the Adelaide Bank case and reveals the limitations of e-signatures when it comes to executing a deed. Click through to learn more.
-
New safety standards proposed for online platforms
The Australian Government has proposed an Online Safety Act that could significantly change the way businesses manage user-generated content online. Find out how this proposed Act could affect your business and how you can prepare for it.
-
Software litigation – how much evidence is sufficient?
The Court was asked to decide if the applicant had enough info to begin proceedings for copyright infringement and breach of confidence in Qudos Mutual Ltd v Infosys Ltd [2019] FCA 702. Qudos was not satisfied with what they had, so the Court ordered the production of further documents and source code.
-
Has my software been copied? – legal test explained
This article examines the legal test for a “substantial reproduction” of computer code, as established by the High Court in Data Access Corporation v Powerflex Services Pty Ltd [1999] HCA 49 and further discussed in subsequent cases. The Court will consider the essential features of the work to determine if there has been a substantial…
-
A bet or a game? The Lottoland decision
The Supreme Court of New South Wales has ruled in favour of Lottoland Australia Pty Ltd, affirming that its disputed products fall under the exception of an Excluded Wagering Service as defined by the Interactive Gambling Act 2001 (Cth), clarifying the distinction between ‘bets’ and ‘games’.
