Am 8. Juni 2016 06:25:59 MESZ, schrieb Tatsuro MATSUOKA <address@hidden>:
From: edmund ronald
To: Ben Abbott
Cc: Sebastian Schöps ; octave-maintainers
Date: 2016/6/8, Wed 12:49
Subject: Re: Octave for OS X (was: How to install Octave 4.0.1 on OS X Yosemite)
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.
Edmund
ᐧ
Can 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.
Ben
Hi 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.html
I 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
According to Oliver, SourceForge changes their policy towards good direction.
See:
http://octave.1599824.n4.nabble.com/Re-pdepe-td4676565.html#a4677297
Tatsuro