4 ms·

> then fork the last open source version and maintain that. But the current maintainer has the Apple provided signing cert, that's the whip hand in this whole

> then fork the last open source version and maintain that. But the current maintainer has the Apple provided signing cert, that's the whip hand in this whole deal. I personally don't blame this fellow and in fact apluad him. To many companies exploit OSS maintainers. I think it's great to see someone turn it around for once.

nicky0 7y ago
Then they have to get a new signing cert for the forked project.
- microtherion 7y ago
  Yes, I didn't understand why TFA considered the signing cert issue significant. AFAIK, Apple would not refuse issuing multiple certs for forks of the same code base.
tw04 7y ago
>But the current maintainer has the Apple provided signing cert, that's the whip hand in this whole deal. So apply for a new signing cert? The only thing I'm hearing is "he closed and I don't want him to close it but forking it takes a lot of effort and I don't want to put in that effort". If nobody is willing to put even the basic effort of applying for a new signing cert, color me skeptical that they'll actually maintain the entire project including the apparently voluminous changes needed to work with Catalina. I hate nothing more than people who complain something isn't open source but want it to be maintained by someone else's time and effort. People's time isn't free, and they have no obligation to give you their current or previous time for nothing. (Not talking about you personally, referring to the guy in the original post)
- dontreact 7y ago
  Huge tangent but this is the same thing that bothers me about pro piracy arguments. Some people feel they have a right to get a copy of someone’s music without paying for it and get upset when there are protections to prevent this.
- derefr 7y ago
  From what I recall, Apple really doesn’t like signing competing forks of the same software. It’s next to impossible to get e.g. your own fork of Firefox into the App Store. They see it as a phishing attempt on the “real” app, I think.
  - hemancuso 7y ago
    ExpanDrive [which I maintain], has a certificate to sign our fork of FUSE

nicky0 7y ago

Then they have to get a new signing cert for the forked project.

microtherion 7y ago
Yes, I didn't understand why TFA considered the signing cert issue significant. AFAIK, Apple would not refuse issuing multiple certs for forks of the same code base.

tw04 7y ago

>But the current maintainer has the Apple provided signing cert, that's the whip hand in this whole deal. So apply for a new signing cert? The only thing I'm hearing is "he closed and I don't want him to close it but forking it takes a lot of effort and I don't want to put in that effort". If nobody is willing to put even the basic effort of applying for a new signing cert, color me skeptical that they'll actually maintain the entire project including the apparently voluminous changes needed to work with Catalina. I hate nothing more than people who complain something isn't open source but want it to be maintained by someone else's time and effort. People's time isn't free, and they have no obligation to give you their current or previous time for nothing. (Not talking about you personally, referring to the guy in the original post)

dontreact 7y ago
Huge tangent but this is the same thing that bothers me about pro piracy arguments. Some people feel they have a right to get a copy of someone’s music without paying for it and get upset when there are protections to prevent this.
derefr 7y ago
From what I recall, Apple really doesn’t like signing competing forks of the same software. It’s next to impossible to get e.g. your own fork of Firefox into the App Store. They see it as a phishing attempt on the “real” app, I think.
- hemancuso 7y ago
  ExpanDrive [which I maintain], has a certificate to sign our fork of FUSE