Correction, current terminology is 'identified developer' (not 'certified'). Here's Apple's how to handle apps from unidentified devs on OSX 10.8:
http://support.apple.com/kb/PH11436 Katja On 5/10/13, katja <katjavet...@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 <jancs...@yahoo.com> wrote: >> ----- Original Message ----- >> >>> From: Miller Puckette <m...@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