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

[Miller Puckette]

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.

cheers
M

On Fri, May 10, 2013 at 03:12:23PM -0700, Jonathan Wilkes wrote:
> ----- Original Message -----
> 
> > From: katja <katjavetter at gmail.com>
> > To: Jonathan Wilkes <jancsika at yahoo.com>
> > Cc: Miller Puckette <msp at ucsd.edu>; "pd-dev at iem.at" <pd-dev at 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 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
> >> 
> > 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Pd-dev mailing list
> Pd-dev at iem.at
> http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-dev