[PD-dev] Mac Os now requiring Apple signatures on all SW !?

katja katjavetter at gmail.com
Fri May 10 23:43:10 CEST 2013

Correction, current terminology is 'identified developer' (not
'certified'). Here's Apple's how to handle apps from unidentified devs
on OSX 10.8:



On 5/10/13, katja <katjavetter at gmail.com> wrote:
> 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.
> 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 at yahoo.com> wrote:
>> ----- Original Message -----
>>> From: Miller Puckette <msp at ucsd.edu>
>>> To: pd-dev at 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 at iem.at
>>> http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-dev
>> _______________________________________________
>> Pd-dev mailing list
>> Pd-dev at iem.at
>> http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-dev

More information about the Pd-dev mailing list