Unfortunately, I cannot release either to the public since they were developed with Real Studio and are for 'internal' use...
License terms allow you to distribute it. It states if you create a derivative by exposing the Real Framework (via rbscript for example) that would be prohibited. If its for another development environment (ie: yours) then you can do it as long as there is a "Made with Real Studio" picture in your about box and splash screen. There are graphics in your RealSoftware.com account page just for this purpose.
Geoff Perlman personally took the time to request that it not be shared publicly, and that I removed the available download (which I did), and I must comply. The software basically generates pure obj-c code exposing obj-c iOS SDK classes and using them in an object oriented manor...then uses the open source GCC compiler for ARM and ios header files to compile and package the code into an installable iOS IPA file...debugging was handled by GCC and errors are reported in the IDE, since GCC natively handles obj-c syntax checking and debugging. The download was available for approximately 2 days when it was available for Windows, Mac, and Linux. I'm sure these lines of the license agreement would continue to prevent its distribution.License Distributed with Real Studio 2012 r2.1:(Prevents Distribution)
* You agree that you will not use Real Studio to create software the primary purpose of which is to create software that would be available to the public.
*You agree that you will not use Real Studio to create software that has as its primary purpose the creation of software without the express written consent of Real Software, Inc. This restriction applies only to software that is made available to the public whether for sale or not.
The wording is a bit "at the user's interpretation
" since, in fact, such could be distributed as long as the code generated from it was not compiled into software which was to be made available to the public 'as a whole'; but for the individual's personal use may be another question? In which case a license agreement would need to be added that using my software you would be bound to such terms.License Available for viewing at realsoftware.com:http://www.realsoftware.com/realstudio/fulllicense(Allows such distribution)
You agree to allow Real Studio to transmit from time to time via SSL, information required to validate your license key. You agree not to create an application that, as its primary purpose, provides your application's end user with access to RBScript and/or the ability to directly (or indirectly through a simple wrapper) call functions in the Realbasic framework. Such software creation is strictly prohibited and would therefore be a violation of this End User License Agreement. You agree that if you and/or Real Software, Inc., believe that any applications you create with Real Studio are designed to aid in the development of software using a language other than Realbasic, said applications must include a "Made with Real Studio" logo in the application's about box and splash screen and must adhere to the rules that govern the use of said logo. Contact Real Software to obtain the logos and usage guidelines. If you are using a trial license key, you are only entitled to use Real Studio for evaluation and testing purposes until the end of your trial period.
Respectively, an older version of Realbasic could be used which does not come with such stipulations in the license agreement to build the front-end ios designer for gcc (which is open source); In which case the online, nor bundled software license would be voilated? Yet, I believe by agreeing to use RS2012r2.1, you become bound by the latest license agreement...which would supersede the old license agreement....
Geoff's primary concern was 'competition' since RS will be releasing an iOS 'compiler' later next year. Regardless, I respect Geoff's wishes. Although I do find it peculiar that at the time I created the software I was jumping into the iOS SDK and obj-c (I am a c/c++ guru though) for the first time(2010)...took a month to develop the original IDE in Visual Basic, and 2 months to integrate all the iOS SDK classes as objects, and create the header files for gcc cross-platform use of the ARM compiler(converted all the code to RS in January
)...So the project was completed and 'perfected' by the 5th month...yet RS has been working on their release for nearly 5 years...6...7 years? With that much time spent I'm sure their release will be absolutely astonishing and I'm sure they have perfected it by this point and are adding the last final touches over the next year until the first release. I personally did not find reason to develop a compiler for it since gcc is the common compiler and why re-invent the wheel?..as with Android, the code is converted to java and then compiled to an apk (which requires the android sdk and JDK)...there was no point developing a byte-code compiler for it since it already existed, was free, and is optimized for development of android applications to begin with, without flaws or need for beta-testing... RS's holdup on developing an iOS/Android front-end lies in the wait to use LLVM so that they can create a custom compiler which uses the higher-end byte-code...but this again is...re-inventing the wheel.
I think it's great that they're trying to develop proprietary compilation methods for software...but this has already left them slightly behind schedule...some newer companies which have only existed for under a year have already created cross-platform software development environments for not only Windows, Mac, Linux, and the web...but Android, iOS, Blackberry, Symbian, ARM-compatible platforms...and a whole myriad...solely because they didn't 're-invent' wheels first..but used the wheels that were already in place with custom front-ends to get them where they are...then have slowly 'upgraded' to new wheels...