On Thu, 23 Oct 2014 18:27:27 -0400 Stephen Joyce <[email protected]> wrote:
> In any case, OpenAFS is not the only project which must decide how to > move forward in this scenario. It might be instructive to see how > macports, homebrew, etc. respond. Those won't involve kexts (if they even use Apple's signing framework at all? Installing a package via macports doesn't go through the OS X packaging system). I would imagine there are not many software projects that provide kexts on OS X that are signed by a non-commercial entity, but have commercial organizations related to them. Other software projects not involving kexts still sign the packages, that's true, but as far as I'm aware the kext thing is what adds a lot of scrutiny and specific requirements with Apple. > On the other hand, if the Foundation has a lawyer to consult, this > thread is mostly wasted time... Oh yes, I was assuming everyone already knew that, but I guess that's not clear. As far as I'm aware, the Foundation people talk to lawyers/a lawyer a lot (that's most of what 501(3)(c) is about), so they know how to, and all of the legal talk in this thread is even more pointless than usual. That's why I was trying to leave out any details about legal matters other than "some people think there's some legal concerns". -- Andrew Deason [email protected] _______________________________________________ OpenAFS-info mailing list [email protected] https://lists.openafs.org/mailman/listinfo/openafs-info
