----- Original Message -----
From: Miller Puckette msp@ucsd.edu To: Jonathan Wilkes jancsika@yahoo.com Cc: katja katjavetter@gmail.com; "pd-dev@iem.at" pd-dev@iem.at Sent: Friday, May 10, 2013 6:28 PM Subject: Re: [PD-dev] Mac Os now requiring Apple signatures on all SW !?
So here's a mad idea I had - what if I put a 'validated' Pd vanilla up for sale for $5 - but also give the identical program away for free the way I do now - that way, school sysadmins who really want their machines only to run 'validated' sotware will be out $5 a box and we can put the money toward the next Pd convention. Maybe that's the canonical way to run a Pd convention in the USA - by acting like USA people.
Again, that adds credibility to a system that adds little more than a pain for users, and it distracts everyone other than bureaucrats. Most users just want to download and run your software.
If a school sysadmin wants to misunderstand security and force instructors to go through the hoops, then the school or, at worst, the instructor should pay you to jump through the hoops and get a signing key. The end user shouldn't even be aware of any of this, other than maybe seeing a link to the _trivial_ workaround katja mentioned next to the version you currently have available.
-Jonathan
cheers M
On Fri, May 10, 2013 at 03:12:23PM -0700, Jonathan Wilkes wrote:
----- Original Message -----
From: katja katjavetter@gmail.com To: Jonathan Wilkes jancsika@yahoo.com Cc: Miller Puckette msp@ucsd.edu; "pd-dev@iem.at"
Sent: Friday, May 10, 2013 5:20 PM Subject: Re: [PD-dev] Mac Os now requiring Apple signatures on all SW
!?
About OSX 10.8 Mountain Lion I've read some time ago that it would
run
/ install apps from certified Apple devs only, unless the user disables that level of security, and then it would run any app without such restriction (which is of course not recommended). At the time I read about that, I was considering upgrading from OSX 10.5, but the concept of 'Apple certified developer' made me think twice. Eventually, it made me turn towards Linux for good. Still I feel that Pd, externals and patches should be supported for as many platforms possible, as is tradition.
Pd-extended and Pd-l2ork have plenty of widely-used GPLv3 externals that come with them so it's a non-starter. If the security setting you describe is a binary choice then unfortunately for the Mac user that is the proper solution here. But keep in mind this isn't a choice between security and Pd, this is a choice between security and running any free software code whose devs refuse to support a non-transparent, arbitrarily revokable signing mechanism that has a central point of failure and terrible track record wrt to privacy/security.
-Jonathan
I can understand why Apple wants to raise their standard for trusted code. In Linux world too, there's screening before one gains write access to trusted repositories, which is obviously beneficial for quality and security. But in Apple's case, selection rationale and criteria will not be open to discussion, or even fully knowledgeable. Therefore, being 'Apple certified developer' is more like
being a
loyal employee than an independent software developer. Frankly, I feel no appeal at all. Hopefully there's a way around.
Katja
On 5/10/13, Jonathan Wilkes jancsika@yahoo.com wrote:
----- Original Message -----
From: Miller Puckette msp@ucsd.edu To: pd-dev@iem.at Cc: Sent: Friday, May 10, 2013 12:41 PM Subject: [PD-dev] Mac Os now requiring Apple signatures on
all SW !?
T o Pd devs -
I heard from a student that the neweset Mac Os (10.8? not
sure -
perhaps
we can just call it 'Cheshire Cat') won't run
binaries of any
sort that
haven't been signed by Apple - and that to get Apple to sign your app
you have
to
register as a developer ($100/year) and still risk getting
denounced as
non-Apple-approved. If this is really the case it puts all
of us in a
bind - for example to publish a piece of music that relies on a
custom extern
you'd have to pay out the $100 in perpetuity to keep the extern
signed.
Maybe this is overblown but if it's true it puts Pd devs
in a bind
- I
think we're obliged to try to suppport Pd on Apple (so as not
to undercut
current Pd users who are on Mac) but to play along with Apple would
be to
participate in what is ultimately a scheme to wrest control away from
computer
users
everywhere.
I'd welcom others' views on this, especially if
someome can
tell me this
is a false alarm :)
I haven't read a single article or new story on anything
resembling
this.
Such a move would make the entire Apple ecosystem incompatible with ALL GPL v3 software. I suppose such a move isn't
outside of the
realm of possibility, but if Apple did go down that road you can
bet it
will effect more than just Pd-extended/Pd-l2ork. So either a)
its FUD,
or b) we would throw our weight behind whatever large-scale organizing effort manifests itself (probably coming from the FSF)
to
defeat such a move.
Either way it should not affect a single line of Pd code nor the development process.
-Jonathan
Miller
_______________________________________________ Pd-dev mailing list Pd-dev@iem.at http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-dev
_______________________________________________ Pd-dev mailing list Pd-dev@iem.at http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-dev
Pd-dev mailing list Pd-dev@iem.at http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-dev