<div dir="ltr">There's also an option in the System Preferences Security & Privacy pane to allow applications from "Anywhere" as opposed to just the App store or identified developers. That way you don't have to approve software manually case by case. Easy solution for now, but who knows how things will develop from here...</div>
<div class="gmail_extra"><br><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Fri, May 10, 2013 at 5:43 PM, katja <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:katjavetter@gmail.com" target="_blank">katjavetter@gmail.com</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
Correction, current terminology is 'identified developer' (not<br>
'certified'). Here's Apple's how to handle apps from unidentified devs<br>
on OSX 10.8:<br>
<br>
<a href="http://support.apple.com/kb/PH11436" target="_blank">http://support.apple.com/kb/PH11436</a><br>
<span class="HOEnZb"><font color="#888888"><br>
<br>
Katja<br>
</font></span><div class="HOEnZb"><div class="h5"><br>
<br>
<br>
On 5/10/13, katja <<a href="mailto:katjavetter@gmail.com">katjavetter@gmail.com</a>> wrote:<br>
> About OSX 10.8 Mountain Lion I've read some time ago that it would run<br>
> / install apps from certified Apple devs only, unless the user<br>
> disables that level of security, and then it would run any app without<br>
> such restriction (which is of course not recommended). At the time I<br>
> read about that, I was considering upgrading from OSX 10.5, but the<br>
> concept of 'Apple certified developer' made me think twice.<br>
> Eventually, it made me turn towards Linux for good. Still I feel that<br>
> Pd, externals and patches should be supported for as many platforms<br>
> possible, as is tradition.<br>
><br>
> I can understand why Apple wants to raise their standard for trusted<br>
> code. In Linux world too, there's screening before one gains write<br>
> access to trusted repositories, which is obviously beneficial for<br>
> quality and security. But in Apple's case, selection rationale and<br>
> criteria will not be open to discussion, or even fully knowledgeable.<br>
> Therefore, being 'Apple certified developer' is more like being a<br>
> loyal employee than an independent software developer. Frankly, I feel<br>
> no appeal at all. Hopefully there's a way around.<br>
><br>
> Katja<br>
><br>
><br>
><br>
><br>
> On 5/10/13, Jonathan Wilkes <<a href="mailto:jancsika@yahoo.com">jancsika@yahoo.com</a>> wrote:<br>
>> ----- Original Message -----<br>
>><br>
>>> From: Miller Puckette <<a href="mailto:msp@ucsd.edu">msp@ucsd.edu</a>><br>
>>> To: <a href="mailto:pd-dev@iem.at">pd-dev@iem.at</a><br>
>>> Cc:<br>
>>> Sent: Friday, May 10, 2013 12:41 PM<br>
>>> Subject: [PD-dev] Mac Os now requiring Apple signatures on all SW !?<br>
>>><br>
>>>T o Pd devs -<br>
>>><br>
>>> I heard from a student that the neweset Mac Os (10.8? not sure -<br>
>>> perhaps<br>
>>> we<br>
>>> can just call it 'Cheshire Cat') won't run binaries of any sort that<br>
>>> haven't<br>
>>> been signed by Apple - and that to get Apple to sign your app you have<br>
>>> to<br>
>>> register as a developer ($100/year) and still risk getting denounced as<br>
>>> non-Apple-approved. If this is really the case it puts all of us in a<br>
>>> bind -<br>
>>> for example to publish a piece of music that relies on a custom extern<br>
>>> you'd<br>
>>> have to pay out the $100 in perpetuity to keep the extern signed.<br>
>>><br>
>>> Maybe this is overblown but if it's true it puts Pd devs in a bind - I<br>
>>> think<br>
>>> we're obliged to try to suppport Pd on Apple (so as not to undercut<br>
>>> current<br>
>>> Pd users who are on Mac) but to play along with Apple would be to<br>
>>> participate<br>
>>> in what is ultimately a scheme to wrest control away from computer users<br>
>>> everywhere.<br>
>>><br>
>>> I'd welcom others' views on this, especially if someome can tell me this<br>
>>> is<br>
>>> a false alarm :)<br>
>><br>
>> I haven't read a single article or new story on anything resembling this.<br>
>><br>
>> Such a move would make the entire Apple ecosystem incompatible<br>
>> with ALL GPL v3 software. I suppose such a move isn't outside of the<br>
>> realm of possibility, but if Apple did go down that road you can bet it<br>
>> will effect more than just Pd-extended/Pd-l2ork. So either a) its FUD,<br>
>> or b) we would throw our weight behind whatever large-scale<br>
>> organizing effort manifests itself (probably coming from the FSF) to<br>
>> defeat such a move.<br>
>><br>
>> Either way it should not affect a single line of Pd code nor the<br>
>> development<br>
>> process.<br>
>><br>
>> -Jonathan<br>
>><br>
>>><br>
>>> Miller<br>
>>><br>
>>> _______________________________________________<br>
>>> Pd-dev mailing list<br>
>>> <a href="mailto:Pd-dev@iem.at">Pd-dev@iem.at</a><br>
>>> <a href="http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-dev" target="_blank">http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-dev</a><br>
>>><br>
>><br>
>> _______________________________________________<br>
>> Pd-dev mailing list<br>
>> <a href="mailto:Pd-dev@iem.at">Pd-dev@iem.at</a><br>
>> <a href="http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-dev" target="_blank">http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-dev</a><br>
>><br>
><br>
<br>
_______________________________________________<br>
Pd-dev mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:Pd-dev@iem.at">Pd-dev@iem.at</a><br>
<a href="http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-dev" target="_blank">http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-dev</a><br>
</div></div></blockquote></div><br><br clear="all"><div><br></div>-- <br>William Brent<br><a href="http://www.williambrent.com">www.williambrent.com</a><br><br>“Great minds flock together”<br>Conflations: conversational idiom for the 21st century<br>
<br><a href="http://www.conflations.com">www.conflations.com</a>
</div>