No more "unregistered" developers?????

[ZVH]

We have a lot of software in our systems that's open source/Unix stuff. Typically it's done for Linux or BSD and ported by someone to OS X. I noticed in the "Security & Privacy" section of System Preferences the only two options to allow software installation are from the Mac App store or from registered Mac developers. Is there a way to change this or work around it? The only way to become a registered Mac developer is to pay the $99 for the "privilege" of working on OS X and then sign the product with Xcode. One developer who's stuff we use said he had no intention of signing up for Apple's program, which is apparently quite the red-tape festival, and if Apple didn't change it, he just wouldn't develop for it.

I can see a lot of Linux/BSD/Unix developers, especially those working on open source stuff, being more than a little irritated by this. Apple wants them to pay $99 so they can distribute what they produce at no cost to anyone? It makes no sense. This is right up there with putting together hardware that can't be configured or upgraded by users.

Is there any way to circumvent this…by disabling SIP for example?

 

[fischersd]

We have a lot of software in our systems that's open source/Unix stuff. Typically it's done for Linux or BSD and ported by someone to OS X. I noticed in the "Security & Privacy" section of System Preferences the only two options to allow software installation are from the Mac App store or from registered Mac developers. Is there a way to change this or work around it? The only way to become a registered Mac developer is to pay the $99 for the "privilege" of working on OS X and then sign the product with Xcode. One developer who's stuff we use said he had no intention of signing up for Apple's program, which is apparently quite the red-tape festival, and if Apple didn't change it, he just wouldn't develop for it.

I can see a lot of Linux/BSD/Unix developers, especially those working on open source stuff, being more than a little irritated by this. Apple wants them to pay $99 so they can distribute what they produce at no cost to anyone? It makes no sense. This is right up there with putting together hardware that can't be configured or upgraded by users.

Is there any way to circumvent this…by disabling SIP for example?

There's already a gatekeeper discussion thread here:
https://forums.macrumors.com/threads/macos-10-12-gatekeeper-discussion.1978236/

 

[leman]

1. It is still possible to install unsigned software
2. Signing applies only to app bundles in the first place, so most open source is not affected by it in any way
3. I totally agree that Apple should offer free keys for opensource developers.

 

[SkankPhone]

We have a lot of software in our systems that's open source/Unix stuff. Typically it's done for Linux or BSD and ported by someone to OS X. I noticed in the "Security & Privacy" section of System Preferences the only two options to allow software installation are from the Mac App store or from registered Mac developers. Is there a way to change this or work around it? The only way to become a registered Mac developer is to pay the $99 for the "privilege" of working on OS X and then sign the product with Xcode. One developer who's stuff we use said he had no intention of signing up for Apple's program, which is apparently quite the red-tape festival, and if Apple didn't change it, he just wouldn't develop for it.

I can see a lot of Linux/BSD/Unix developers, especially those working on open source stuff, being more than a little irritated by this. Apple wants them to pay $99 so they can distribute what they produce at no cost to anyone? It makes no sense. This is right up there with putting together hardware that can't be configured or upgraded by users.

Is there any way to circumvent this…by disabling SIP for example?

Right click the app or file and click open. That will bypass Gatekeeper.

 

[nikmatt]

2. Signing applies only to app bundles in the first place, so most open source is not affected by it in any way

That's a bold declaration.

 

[leman]

That's a bold declaration.

How that? The majority of open-source products are libraries and command-line tools, and these don't need certificates. Of course, the situation for devs who make open-source app bundles is less then optimal and Apple should certainly allow them to have certificates for free.