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 <katjavet...@gmail.com> > > To: Jonathan Wilkes <jancs...@yahoo.com> > > Cc: Miller Puckette <m...@ucsd.edu>; "pd-dev@iem.at" <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 <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 _______________________________________________ Pd-dev mailing list Pd-dev@iem.at http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-dev