Re: Octave for OS X (was: How to install Octave 4.0.1 on OS X Yosemite)

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
25 messages Options
12
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Octave for OS X (was: How to install Octave 4.0.1 on OS X Yosemite)

bpabbott
Administrator
Switching to the maintainers list

> On Jun 3, 2016, at 7:09 AM, Ben Abbott <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
>> On Jun 3, 2016, at 1:46 AM, Sebastian Schöps <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>
>> Mike Miller-4 wrote
>>> This reads to me like you are both suggesting that this homebrew-based
>>> binary installer could become an official installer for any OS X user,
>>> is that right?
>>
>> Yes. We somehow need to take of the dependencies and it seems a clever
>> choice to to this via a package manager. There are three possibilities for
>> the Mac Fink, Macports and homebrew. We chose because a couple of reasons,
>> mainly because of "social reasons", i.e, the homebrew community is very open
>> and super responsive.
>>
>>
>> Mike Miller-4 wrote
>>> If yes, then can someone please update the primary OS X wiki page to
>>> make the binary downloader be immediately visible and primary on that
>>> page? I think visitors to the page
>>>
>>> http://wiki.octave.org/Octave_for_MacOS_X
>
> I’ve made some changes yesterday and more today. Essentially I elevated the bundle info from the bottom of the page to the top and added links to the downloads, as suggested. Please take a look.
>
> http://wiki.octave.org/Octave_for_MacOS_X#Installing_a_Mac_OS_X_Bundle
>
> Ben

The link to the beta installer is getting too much traffic for DropBox.

        Error (429)

        This account's links are generating too much traffic and have been temporarily disabled!

Perhaps it is time for a more appropriate host. What is needed to add a “mac” directory to ftp.gnu.org.gnu/octave?

        https://ftp.gnu.org/gnu/octave/mac

And how are uploads managed?

Ben


Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Octave for OS X (was: How to install Octave 4.0.1 on OS X Yosemite)

Sebastian Schöps

> Am 03.06.2016 um 23:55 schrieb Ben Abbott <[hidden email]>:
>
> Switching to the maintainers list
>
>> On Jun 3, 2016, at 7:09 AM, Ben Abbott <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>
>>> On Jun 3, 2016, at 1:46 AM, Sebastian Schöps <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>>
>>> Mike Miller-4 wrote
>>>> This reads to me like you are both suggesting that this homebrew-based
>>>> binary installer could become an official installer for any OS X user,
>>>> is that right?
>>>
>>> Yes. We somehow need to take of the dependencies and it seems a clever
>>> choice to to this via a package manager. There are three possibilities for
>>> the Mac Fink, Macports and homebrew. We chose because a couple of reasons,
>>> mainly because of "social reasons", i.e, the homebrew community is very open
>>> and super responsive.
>>>
>>>
>>> Mike Miller-4 wrote
>>>> If yes, then can someone please update the primary OS X wiki page to
>>>> make the binary downloader be immediately visible and primary on that
>>>> page? I think visitors to the page
>>>>
>>>> http://wiki.octave.org/Octave_for_MacOS_X
>>
>> I’ve made some changes yesterday and more today. Essentially I elevated the bundle info from the bottom of the page to the top and added links to the downloads, as suggested. Please take a look.
>>
>> http://wiki.octave.org/Octave_for_MacOS_X#Installing_a_Mac_OS_X_Bundle
>>
>> Ben
>
> The link to the beta installer is getting too much traffic for DropBox.
>
> Error (429)
>
> This account's links are generating too much traffic and have been temporarily disabled!
>
> Perhaps it is time for a more appropriate host. What is needed to add a “mac” directory to ftp.gnu.org.gnu/octave?
>
> https://ftp.gnu.org/gnu/octave/mac
>
> And how are uploads managed?

I could convince dropbox to give me more traffic but indeed I would be a good time to switch.

Sebastian

 


Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Octave for OS X (was: How to install Octave 4.0.1 on OS X Yosemite)

tmacchant
In reply to this post by bpabbott
> From: Ben Abbott 

> To: Mike Miller ; octave-maintainers
> Cc: Sebastian Schöps 
> Date: 2016/6/4, Sat 06:55
> Subject: Re: Octave for OS X (was: How to install Octave 4.0.1 on OS X Yosemite)
>
> Switching to the maintainers list
>
>>  On Jun 3, 2016, at 7:09 AM, Ben Abbott <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>
>>>  On Jun 3, 2016, at 1:46 AM, Sebastian Schöps <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>>
>>>  Mike Miller-4 wrote
>>>>  This reads to me like you are both suggesting that this
> homebrew-based
>>>>  binary installer could become an official installer for any OS X
> user,
>>>>  is that right?
>>>
>>>  Yes. We somehow need to take of the dependencies and it seems a clever
>>>  choice to to this via a package manager. There are three possibilities
> for
>>>  the Mac Fink, Macports and homebrew. We chose because a couple of
> reasons,
>>>  mainly because of "social reasons", i.e, the homebrew
> community is very open
>>>  and super responsive.
>>>
>>>
>>>  Mike Miller-4 wrote
>>>>  If yes, then can someone please update the primary OS X wiki page
> to
>>>>  make the binary downloader be immediately visible and primary on
> that
>>>>  page? I think visitors to the page
>>>>
>>>>  http://wiki.octave.org/Octave_for_MacOS_X
>>
>>  I’ve made some changes yesterday and more today. Essentially I elevated the
> bundle info from the bottom of the page to the top and added links to the
> downloads, as suggested. Please take a look.
>>
>>      http://wiki.octave.org/Octave_for_MacOS_X#Installing_a_Mac_OS_X_Bundle
>>
>>  Ben
>
> The link to the beta installer is getting too much traffic for DropBox.
>
>     Error (429)
>
>     This account's links are generating too much traffic and have been
> temporarily disabled!
>
> Perhaps it is time for a more appropriate host. What is needed to add a “mac”
> directory to ftp.gnu.org.gnu/octave?
>
>     https://ftp.gnu.org/gnu/octave/mac
>
> And how are uploads managed?
>
> Ben


I am not a Mac user but I see many posts that ask the way to install octave into MacOSX
in the bbs in Japan.

I also think that it is very nice if Octave for OS X is able be downloaded from the octave ftp site.

Tatsuro 

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Octave for OS X (was: How to install Octave 4.0.1 on OS X Yosemite)

Carnë Draug
In reply to this post by Sebastian Schöps
On 3 June 2016 at 23:19, Sebastian <[hidden email]> wrote:

>
>> Am 03.06.2016 um 23:55 schrieb Ben Abbott <[hidden email]>:
>>
>> [...]
>> The link to the beta installer is getting too much traffic for DropBox.
>>
>>       Error (429)
>>
>>       This account's links are generating too much traffic and have been temporarily disabled!
>>
>> Perhaps it is time for a more appropriate host. What is needed to add a “mac” directory to ftp.gnu.org.gnu/octave?
>>
>>       https://ftp.gnu.org/gnu/octave/mac
>>
>> And how are uploads managed?
>
> I could convince dropbox to give me more traffic but indeed I would be
> a good time to switch.
>
> Sebastian
>

There is still the problem that a homebrew build is not a build with
free tools.  I was under the impression that wouldn't be acceptable
on the gnu servers.

Octave Forge has historically been the place to distribute such
non-official builds.  I can upload them there if you want it.

Carnë

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Octave for OS X (was: How to install Octave 4.0.1 on OS X Yosemite)

Sebastian Schöps
Carnë Draug wrote
There is still the problem that a homebrew build is not a build with
free tools.  I was under the impression that wouldn't be acceptable
on the gnu servers.
Which tool is not free? Homebrew is under BSD license. MacOS itself is not free but that would imply that you cannot upload any stuff for Mac?

Carnë Draug wrote
Octave Forge has historically been the place to distribute such non-official builds.  I can upload them there if you want it.
So let's do it? I will send you links to the dmg files.
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Re: Octave for OS X (was: How to install Octave 4.0.1 on OS X Yosemite)

tmacchant
In reply to this post by bpabbott
> > There is still the problem that a homebrew build is not a build with
> > free tools.  I was under the impression that wouldn't be acceptable
> > on the gnu servers.
>
> Which tool is not free? Homebrew is under BSD license. MacOS itself is not
> free but that would imply that you cannot upload any stuff for Mac?
>
If it the true, windows binary cannot be appeared on the official download site because windows is also non-free.

Tatsuro
 
 


Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Re: Octave for OS X (was: How to install Octave 4.0.1 on OS X Yosemite)

Sebastian Schöps
tmacchant wrote
If it the true, windows binary cannot be appeared on the official download site because windows is also non-free.
... or only if they were created by cross compiling (which cannot be done for the Mac afaik).

Seb.
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Octave for OS X (was: How to install Octave 4.0.1 on OS X Yosemite)

Carnë Draug
In reply to this post by Sebastian Schöps
On 4 June 2016 at 20:34, Sebastian Schöps <[hidden email]> wrote:
> Carnë Draug wrote
>> There is still the problem that a homebrew build is not a build with
>> free tools.  I was under the impression that wouldn't be acceptable
>> on the gnu servers.
>
> Which tool is not free? Homebrew is under BSD license. MacOS itself is not
> free but that would imply that you cannot upload any stuff for Mac?
>

You can upload stuff for Mac.  Just not something built on MacOSX.  The
issue is not limited to clang, homebrew uses either Oracle's or Apple's
build of java instead of building openJDK from source.

At least this is my understanding of the situation.

> Carnë Draug wrote
>> Octave Forge has historically been the place to distribute such
>> non-official builds.  I can upload them there if you want it.
>
> So let's do it? I will send you links to the dmg files.

Yup.  Send them to me.

On 4 June 2016 at 21:45, [hidden email] <[hidden email]> wrote:
>> > There is still the problem that a homebrew build is not a build with
>> > free tools.  I was under the impression that wouldn't be acceptable
>> > on the gnu servers.
>>
>> Which tool is not free? Homebrew is under BSD license. MacOS itself is not
>> free but that would imply that you cannot upload any stuff for Mac?
>>
> If it the true, windows binary cannot be appeared on the official download
> site because windows is also non-free.

Where it is used, is not the issue.  The issue is how it is built.  The
windows binaries are actually built in Linux with free tools only.

Carnë

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Octave for OS X (was: How to install Octave 4.0.1 on OS X Yosemite)

tmacchant
----- Original Message -----

> From: Carnë Draug 
> To: Sebastian Schöps ; Tatsuro MATSUOKA 
> Cc: octave-maintainers
> Date: 2016/6/5, Sun 07:55
> Subject: Re: Octave for OS X (was: How to install Octave 4.0.1 on OS X Yosemite)
>
> On 4 June 2016 at 20:34, Sebastian Schöps <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>  Carnë Draug wrote
>>>  There is still the problem that a homebrew build is not a build with
>>>  free tools.  I was under the impression that wouldn't be acceptable
>>>  on the gnu servers.
>>
>>  Which tool is not free? Homebrew is under BSD license. MacOS itself is not
>>  free but that would imply that you cannot upload any stuff for Mac?
>>
>
> You can upload stuff for Mac.  Just not something built on MacOSX.  The
> issue is not limited to clang, homebrew uses either Oracle's or Apple's
> build of java instead of building openJDK from source.
>
> At least this is my understanding of the situation.
>
>>  Carnë Draug wrote
>>>  Octave Forge has historically been the place to distribute such
>>>  non-official builds.  I can upload them there if you want it.
>>
>>  So let's do it? I will send you links to the dmg files.
>
> Yup.  Send them to me.
>
> On 4 June 2016 at 21:45, [hidden email] <[hidden email]>
> wrote:
>>>  > There is still the problem that a homebrew build is not a build
> with
>>>  > free tools.  I was under the impression that wouldn't be
> acceptable
>>>  > on the gnu servers.
>>>
>>>  Which tool is not free? Homebrew is under BSD license. MacOS itself is
> not
>>>  free but that would imply that you cannot upload any stuff for Mac?
>>>
>>  If it the true, windows binary cannot be appeared on the official download
>>  site because windows is also non-free.
>
> Where it is used, is not the issue.  The issue is how it is built.  The
> windows binaries are actually built in Linux with free tools only.
>
> Carnë


OK.
I understand the situation.
The octave-forge distributes old octave-3 for Mac.
Then as Carnë told, the Octave-forge is not but choice to distributes a new Mac binary,
I think.

Of course, I am not a Mac user so that I will not say further.

Tatsuro

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Octave for OS X (was: How to install Octave 4.0.1 on OS X Yosemite)

bpabbott
Administrator
In reply to this post by Sebastian Schöps
> On Jun 4, 2016, at 3:34 PM, Sebastian Schöps <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> Carnë Draug wrote
>> There is still the problem that a homebrew build is not a build with
>> free tools.  I was under the impression that wouldn't be acceptable
>> on the gnu servers.
>
> Which tool is not free? Homebrew is under BSD license. MacOS itself is not
> free but that would imply that you cannot upload any stuff for Mac?
>
> Carnë Draug wrote
>> Octave Forge has historically been the place to distribute such
>> non-official builds.  I can upload them there if you want it.
>
> So let's do it? I will send you links to the dmg files.

Carne, what about the web site? Do you know if it is improper to link to the Mac OS X installers on the main page, and the download page?

        http://www.gnu.org/software/octave/

        http://www.gnu.org/software/octave/download.html

Ben
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Octave for OS X (was: How to install Octave 4.0.1 on OS X Yosemite)

Mike Miller-4
On Sat, Jun 04, 2016 at 21:16:23 -0400, Ben Abbott wrote:
> Carne, what about the web site? Do you know if it is improper to link
> to the Mac OS X installers on the main page, and the download page?
>
> http://www.gnu.org/software/octave/
>
> http://www.gnu.org/software/octave/download.html

The block of text at the bottom of the main page is a "latest news"
feature, it is not supposed to only point at installers. Maybe this
should be updated to talk about the current summer of code session.

Discussion about whether the official GNU project web site can endorse a
binary disk image for OS X that can only be built on OS X will probably
have to be treated carefully.

One thing at a time, making the installer available via SourceForge
sounds like a good first step, and obviously making it more visible on
the wiki helped generate interest.

--
mike

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Octave for OS X (was: How to install Octave 4.0.1 on OS X Yosemite)

bpabbott
Administrator
> On Jun 5, 2016, at 12:45 PM, Mike Miller <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> On Sat, Jun 04, 2016 at 21:16:23 -0400, Ben Abbott wrote:
>> Carne, what about the web site? Do you know if it is improper to link
>> to the Mac OS X installers on the main page, and the download page?
>>
>> http://www.gnu.org/software/octave/
>>
>> http://www.gnu.org/software/octave/download.html
>
> The block of text at the bottom of the main page is a "latest news"
> feature, it is not supposed to only point at installers. Maybe this
> should be updated to talk about the current summer of code session.
>
> Discussion about whether the official GNU project web site can endorse a
> binary disk image for OS X that can only be built on OS X will probably
> have to be treated carefully.
>
> One thing at a time, making the installer available via SourceForge
> sounds like a good first step, and obviously making it more visible on
> the wiki helped generate interest.
>
> --
> mike

Is the problem that it can only be built on OS X? If not, what if the build tools use a license which is compatible with all versions of the GNU General Public License? I’m not sure that is the case for the Xcode gui, but it appears that is the case for the tools.

        http://opensource.apple.com/release/developer-tools-72/

        https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1815020

        http://llvm.org/docs/DeveloperPolicy.html#copyright

        https://opensource.org/licenses/UoI-NCSA.php

        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/University_of_Illinois/NCSA_Open_Source_License

Ben


Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Octave for OS X (was: How to install Octave 4.0.1 on OS X Yosemite)

Sebastian Schöps
bpabbott wrote
> On Jun 5, 2016, at 12:45 PM, Mike Miller <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> On Sat, Jun 04, 2016 at 21:16:23 -0400, Ben Abbott wrote:
>> Carne, what about the web site? Do you know if it is improper to link
>> to the Mac OS X installers on the main page, and the download page?
>>
>> http://www.gnu.org/software/octave/
>>
>> http://www.gnu.org/software/octave/download.html
>
> The block of text at the bottom of the main page is a "latest news"
> feature, it is not supposed to only point at installers. Maybe this
> should be updated to talk about the current summer of code session.
>
> Discussion about whether the official GNU project web site can endorse a
> binary disk image for OS X that can only be built on OS X will probably
> have to be treated carefully.
>
> One thing at a time, making the installer available via SourceForge
> sounds like a good first step, and obviously making it more visible on
> the wiki helped generate interest.
>
> --
> mike

Is the problem that it can only be built on OS X? If not, what if the build tools use a license which is compatible with all versions of the GNU General Public License? I’m not sure that is the case for the Xcode gui, but it appears that is the case for the tools.

        http://opensource.apple.com/release/developer-tools-72/

        https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1815020

        http://llvm.org/docs/DeveloperPolicy.html#copyright

        https://opensource.org/licenses/UoI-NCSA.php

        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/University_of_Illinois/NCSA_Open_Source_License

Ben
I like to support Ben's statement. The toolchain is free. To my best knowledge, we are not using or linking to proprietary stuff as Java or Xcode. The underlying operating system is Darwin which is also free. However, possibly the creation of the installer itself is based on proprietary Apple code. If this is the only problem, we could ship a zip instead of a dmg.

Does anyone know the rules for uploading or hyperlinking stuff on GNU servers exactly? (the actual wording is probably important)

Sebastian
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Octave for OS X (was: How to install Octave 4.0.1 on OS X Yosemite)

Carnë Draug
On 6 June 2016 at 10:09, Sebastian Schöps <[hidden email]> wrote:

> bpabbott wrote
>> [...]
>>
>> Is the problem that it can only be built on OS X? If not, what if the
>> build tools use a license which is compatible with all versions of the GNU
>> General Public License? I’m not sure that is the case for the Xcode gui,
>> but it appears that is the case for the tools.
>>
>>       http://opensource.apple.com/release/developer-tools-72/
>>
>>       https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1815020
>>
>>       http://llvm.org/docs/DeveloperPolicy.html#copyright
>>
>>       https://opensource.org/licenses/UoI-NCSA.php
>>
>>
>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/University_of_Illinois/NCSA_Open_Source_License
>>
>> Ben
>
> I like to support Ben's statement. The toolchain is free. To my best
> knowledge, we are not using or linking to proprietary stuff as Java or
> Xcode. The underlying operating system is Darwin which is also free.
> However, possibly the creation of the installer itself is based on
> proprietary Apple code. If this is the only problem, we could ship a zip
> instead of a dmg.
>
> Does anyone know the rules for uploading or hyperlinking stuff on GNU
> servers exactly? (the actual wording is probably important)
>

I thought that there were rules but I couldn't find any.  I have asked on
IRC and no one seems to know of any such rule.  However, the principle
behind it is still sound.  We shouldn't be distributing binaries that can't
be built with free software.

The problem is not the dmg format, although there should be free tools to
create those.  The problem is the actual OS which doesn't look free.  Or
is it?  I am not very familiar with Mac.  While Darwin does seem like free,
can you actually build the binary there?

Basically, we fell uncomfortable with gnu.org/software/octave endorsing a
binary for OS X that can only be built on OS X.

That's kind of the same reasoning why there was no Windows binary from
Octave although Octave Forge had them for a very long time.

Carnë

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Octave for OS X (was: How to install Octave 4.0.1 on OS X Yosemite)

edmund ronald
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

On Tue, Jun 7, 2016 at 10:56 PM, Carnë Draug <[hidden email]> wrote:
On 6 June 2016 at 10:09, Sebastian Schöps <[hidden email]> wrote:
> bpabbott wrote
>> [...]
>>
>> Is the problem that it can only be built on OS X? If not, what if the
>> build tools use a license which is compatible with all versions of the GNU
>> General Public License? I’m not sure that is the case for the Xcode gui,
>> but it appears that is the case for the tools.
>>
>>       http://opensource.apple.com/release/developer-tools-72/
>>
>>       https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1815020
>>
>>       http://llvm.org/docs/DeveloperPolicy.html#copyright
>>
>>       https://opensource.org/licenses/UoI-NCSA.php
>>
>>
>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/University_of_Illinois/NCSA_Open_Source_License
>>
>> Ben
>
> I like to support Ben's statement. The toolchain is free. To my best
> knowledge, we are not using or linking to proprietary stuff as Java or
> Xcode. The underlying operating system is Darwin which is also free.
> However, possibly the creation of the installer itself is based on
> proprietary Apple code. If this is the only problem, we could ship a zip
> instead of a dmg.
>
> Does anyone know the rules for uploading or hyperlinking stuff on GNU
> servers exactly? (the actual wording is probably important)
>

I thought that there were rules but I couldn't find any.  I have asked on
IRC and no one seems to know of any such rule.  However, the principle
behind it is still sound.  We shouldn't be distributing binaries that can't
be built with free software.

The problem is not the dmg format, although there should be free tools to
create those.  The problem is the actual OS which doesn't look free.  Or
is it?  I am not very familiar with Mac.  While Darwin does seem like free,
can you actually build the binary there?

Basically, we fell uncomfortable with gnu.org/software/octave endorsing a
binary for OS X that can only be built on OS X.

That's kind of the same reasoning why there was no Windows binary from
Octave although Octave Forge had them for a very long time.

Carnë


Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Octave for OS X (was: How to install Octave 4.0.1 on OS X Yosemite)

bpabbott
Administrator
On Jun 7, 2016, at 9:48 PM, edmund ronald <[hidden email]> 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

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
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Octave for OS X (was: How to install Octave 4.0.1 on OS X Yosemite)

edmund ronald


On Wednesday, June 8, 2016, Ben Abbott <[hidden email]> wrote:
On Jun 7, 2016, at 9:48 PM, edmund ronald <<a href="javascript:_e(%7B%7D,&#39;cvml&#39;,&#39;edmundronald@gmail.com&#39;);" target="_blank">edmundronald@...> 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

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.
 I believe Sebastian is familiar with it, we discussed it a bit at Octconf.
 A lot of people seem to be using GIthub these days, both as source and binary repository.

Edmund
 
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Octave for OS X (was: How to install Octave 4.0.1 on OS X Yosemite)

edmund ronald


On Wednesday, June 8, 2016, edmund ronald <[hidden email]> wrote:


On Wednesday, June 8, 2016, Ben Abbott <<a href="javascript:_e(%7B%7D,&#39;cvml&#39;,&#39;bpabbott@mac.com&#39;);" target="_blank">bpabbott@...> wrote:
On Jun 7, 2016, at 9:48 PM, edmund ronald <[hidden email]> 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

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.
 I believe Sebastian is familiar with it, we discussed it a bit at Octconf.
 A lot of people seem to be using GIthub these days, both as source and binary repository.

Edmund
 

I have found the relevant legalistic guidance relating to code-signing on the GNU.ORG site    http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.en.html#GiveUpKeys
It would seem that code-signing in itself raises no GPL issues, at least from the point of view of the people who curate the GPL;  Apple, Google and Oracle and other corporations who rely on open source pay lawyers  to have different opinions about the meaning of the GPL but I don't think that concerns us here.
---
I use public key cryptography to sign my code to assure its authenticity. Is it true that GPLv3 forces me to release my private signing keys?(#GiveUpKeys)

No. The only time you would be required to release signing keys is if you conveyed GPLed software inside a User Product, and its hardware checked the software for a valid cryptographic signature before it would function. In that specific case, you would be required to provide anyone who owned the device, on demand, with the key to sign and install modified software on the device so that it will run. If each instance of the device uses a different key, then you need only give each purchaser a key for that instance.

---


Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Octave for OS X (was: How to install Octave 4.0.1 on OS X Yosemite)

tmacchant
In reply to this post by edmund ronald
>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 <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
>On Jun 7, 2016, at 9:48 PM, edmund ronald <[hidden email]> 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  

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Octave for OS X (was: How to install Octave 4.0.1 on OS X Yosemite)

edmund ronald


On Wednesday, June 8, 2016, Tatsuro MATSUOKA <[hidden email]> wrote:
>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 <<a href="javascript:;" onclick="_e(event, &#39;cvml&#39;, &#39;bpabbott@mac.com&#39;)">bpabbott@...> wrote:
>
>On Jun 7, 2016, at 9:48 PM, edmund ronald <<a href="javascript:;" onclick="_e(event, &#39;cvml&#39;, &#39;edmundronald@gmail.com&#39;)">edmundronald@...> 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  

Ah. Thank you very much for the link to that discussion.

Edmund 
12