3 ms·
It's pretty clear that a second, local signing key is absolutely not something Apple wants in its iOS ecosystem, because that would open up sideloading of apps
by 0x0 10y ago
It's pretty clear that a second, local signing key is absolutely not something Apple wants in its iOS ecosystem, because that would open up sideloading of apps bypassing the app store.
- detaro 10y agoTrue, they'd need a way to limit it to the GPL components for iOS devices, which makes it a lot more complex and ugly to implement. (I had mostly been thinking about macbooks, where the feature might be an easier sell)
- Someone 10y agoI don't see how one would limit it in any way. If they ship a binary and give you its signing key, you can change it into any binary you want and resign it, and the OS will have to accept it (if it doesn't, they aren't complying with the GPL because, apparently, they didn't give you the full effective signing key)
- detaro 10y agoYes, but they would want to have that key to be limited to only allow replacing of GPLv3 binaries. Just because I can demand a key to replace GPLv3 components doesn't mean I can demand a key to replace other software components, so the verification system has to be able to use different keys for different parts of the system. (If that is wrong, and I can demand a key for everything, then that is the obvious answer why we'll never see GPLv3 on there. Or even if it is unclear what the actual situation is)
- Someone 10y agoBut that means the OS will run any binary of which the creator, by signing it with that key, claims it is GPL3. That renders the entire system useless.
- davexunit 10y agoSo let's not blame the GPL! This is Apple's problem, not the GPL's, because they want to have full control over iPhone users.
- detaro 10y agoNobody in this specific comment chain has been blaming the GPL?