[OpenAFS] Re: Providing signed packages (was Re: any experiences with OpenAFS
Thu, 23 Oct 2014 20:37:42 -0500
On Thu, 23 Oct 2014 18:27:27 -0400
Stephen Joyce <email@example.com> 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".