On Thu, 2014-10-23 at 20:37 -0500, Andrew Deason wrote:
> On Thu, 23 Oct 2014 18:27:27 -0400
> Stephen Joyce 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. respon
On Thu, 23 Oct 2014 18:27:27 -0400
Stephen Joyce 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 fram
On Tue, 21 Oct 2014 22:16:01 -0600
Parth Shah wrote:
> I am doing my masters at University of Colorado Denver in Computer
> Science. I have taken Operating Systems class this semester, in which
> I have a term project. As a part of the project I am planning to
> implement user level file system
On Thu, 23 Oct 2014, D Brashear wrote:
Or the developer, if the builder and/or signer are not otherwise
contractually tied to the foundation's insurance.
Again, seek actual legal advice.
Yup. And that's the summary I'd give about the understanding
Stephen was looking for after Jeff's e
Hi there,
My name is Parth Shah.
I am doing my masters at University of Colorado Denver in Computer Science.
I have taken Operating Systems class this semester, in which I have a term
project. As a part of the project I am planning to implement user level
file system in Linux system. For that I hav
On Thu, 23 Oct 2014, Garrett Wollman wrote:
> Official FreeBSD packages are built from the ports collection on a
> weekly basis, but the OpenAFS port cannot be built because the FreeBSD
> package builders do not have the necessary kernel compile tree
> available. It might be possible to make this
< said:
> I don't think until very recently AIX had a way; Solaris we let our
> packages bitrot
> and now the mechanism to make packages is different; and I haven't kept
> track of FreeBSD.
Ben built the 1.6.9 packages currently being distributed on
openafs.org. FreeBSD does not have signed pack
On Thu, 23 Oct 2014 11:02:32 -0500
Andrew Deason wrote:
> For all of these situations where the Foundation would provide the
> ability to sign binaries, there are those legal considerations, then,
> but also other things. The Foundation needs to have a point of contact
> for any of these, and nee
On Thu, Oct 23, 2014 at 1:19 PM, Gary Buhrmaster
wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 23, 2014 at 4:02 PM, Andrew Deason
> wrote:
>
> > For all of these situations where the Foundation would provide the
> > ability to sign binaries, there are those legal considerations, then,
> > but also other things. The
On Thu, Oct 23, 2014 at 12:02 PM, Andrew Deason
wrote:
>
> This is a problem for all of the binaries that openafs.org provides, but
> it's an urgent problem for OS X specifically because of two issues:
> we've never provided signed OS X packages, and in recent releases of OS
> X it is difficult o
On Thu, Oct 23, 2014 at 4:02 PM, Andrew Deason wrote:
> For all of these situations where the Foundation would provide the
> ability to sign binaries, there are those legal considerations, then,
> but also other things. The Foundation needs to have a point of contact
> for any of these, and n
On Wed, 22 Oct 2014 19:59:59 +
"E. Margarete Ziemer" wrote:
> I will put the lawyer and risk assessment topics on the agenda for the
> next Foundation Board meeting. Thank you, all of you, for this
> discourse, which has helped to sharpen my/our thoughts and focus on
> what exact and unambig
12 matches
Mail list logo
