On Oct 4, 2012, at 12:15 AM, LuKreme wrote: > Chris Murphy spake on Wednesday 03-Oct-2012@22:38:31 >> Another possibility is that you're confused. Or maybe you're too young to >> play with matches without adult supervision. > > And this is why I don't talk to you, you are simply a troll.
Two contradictions in a single sentence. Your skill might be boundless. If you're going to keep not talking to me, please try to be more discriminate what you bite on. The above is boring, valueless, gunk. Here's what you should have addressed . . . On Oct 3, 2012, at 4:35 PM, LuKreme wrote: > The new provisions in the GPLv3, for one thing, prevent code signing by the > OS vendor and makes the OS X sandbox impossible. Since Fedora 18 will be the first linux distribution to support UEFI Secure Boot, and to do this they will need to sign GPLv3 code, I know your first assertion is wrong. And since I work with SELinux based sandboxing and don't use any signed code, I know your sandbox assertion is untrue too. It does not prevent code signing by the OS vendor. It prevents a product manufacturer from using code signing to prevent users from running their own modified GPL code on the device, and does this through a requirement that says if you use GPLv3 code, and you assert the right to install your own modified GPL code to the device in the future, then you need to provide Installation Information to the user so they can do this too. The GPLv3 does say you can void the warranty if they do this and break the device. The Apple sandbox uses TrustedBSD (BSD/XNU equivalent to SELinux) to apply policy enforcement profiles to applications. Mandatory access control does not require signed code to function, in fact it would be extremely limited if that were true, it depends on various profiles to restrict the ability of any application. So neither of your assertions are true. Chris Murphy _______________________________________________ MacOSX-admin mailing list [email protected] http://www.omnigroup.com/mailman/listinfo/macosx-admin
