On Jun 7, 2016, at 11:49 PM, edmund ronald <address@hidden> wrote:
On Wednesday, June 8, 2016, Ben Abbott <address@hidden> wrote:On Jun 7, 2016, at 9:48 PM, edmund ronald <address@hidden> wrote:Does anyone here have any GPL-related legal, ideological or personal objection to my code-signing an OS X binary and distributing it?Which is the version of the GPL that applies?BTW, as most here realize, Apple's security architecture is going to create a bunch of headaches with any native Mac distribution - it's going to be a Red Queen situation, with the Mac maintainers running to keep in place ie. keep their binary compatible as Apple's rules change.EdmundᐧCan you give us a quick explanation of “code-signing”? Any reason why we can’t do that ourselves and distribute via SourceForge?Octave uses GPLv3.BenHi Ben,I would assume you can do anything you want :) and so can I within the limits set by the GPL, that is the beauty of free software.The code-signing tech is described here: https://developer.apple.com/library/mac/documentation/Security/Conceptual/CodeSigningGuide/Introduction/Introduction.htmlI believe Sebastian is familiar with it, we discussed it a bit at Octconf.I personally feel a bit uneasy about Sourceforge, maybe because of this event: http://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2015/05/sourceforge-grabs-gimp-for-windows-account-wraps-installer-in-bundle-pushing-adware/A lot of people seem to be using GIthub these days, both as source and binary repository.Edmund
I assume If we code sign the bundle before uploading to sourceforrge, everyone who downloads benefits?
Ben