| |||||||||||||
Details on Ubuntu's UEFI secure boot planDetails on Ubuntu's UEFI secure boot planPosted Jun 24, 2012 14:57 UTC (Sun) by slashdot (guest, #22014)Parent article: Details on Ubuntu's UEFI secure boot plan
Regarding the "manufacturer mistake" GPLv3 violation scenario, that's bullshit, since the manufacturer is obviously the one violating the GPLv3 when redistributing GRUB2, not Ubuntu.
And copyright law doesn't force past mistakes to be fixed (especially when action from a 3rd party would be required): that manufacturer would simply have to pay the FSF monetary damages, should the FSF sue.
Of course this assumes that the manufacturer is selling the system using Ubuntu; if Canonical itself is selling it using manufacturer-supplied hardware, they would be liable, but of course they can just check that the system is not locked, and avoid selling it if is.
Canonical needs to fire their lawyers if they can't tell them this...
(Log in to post comments)
Details on Ubuntu's UEFI secure boot plan Posted Jun 25, 2012 0:05 UTC (Mon) by dgm (subscriber, #49227) [Link]
I smell something fishy here too. It all sounds like a bunch of excuses to justify a political decision (going with the Intel solution).
Details on Ubuntu's UEFI secure boot plan Posted Jun 25, 2012 3:45 UTC (Mon) by jspaleta (subscriber, #50639) [Link]
I am willing to give the the benefit of the doubt as to motivation on this point. I don't think they have the correct interpretation...but I'm also not the one with a large liability hanging over my head either if I'm wrong...so I'm not going to pull my eye pointing stick out on this particular point and jab them with it.
And if I'm willing to give them the benefit of the doubt, then certainly everyone else here should be able to as well... just this once.
And besides... their early support of grub2 upstream is a bright spot in their upstream contribution story. It's difficult to envision a new political/strategic consideration (other than the stated discomfort with the licensing associated with crypto keys) which would make dropping grub2 look like a good strategic move now and not 6 months ago...well at least to me.
There is probably enough uncertainly in how to proceed with signed grub2 binaries that a clean public statement from the copyright holder on grub2 (the FSF) about how a signed grub2 scheme should be implemented as a best practices approach to compliance would be welcome by pretty much everyone compiling grub2 binaries for distribution.
-jef
Details on Ubuntu's UEFI secure boot plan Posted Jun 25, 2012 14:00 UTC (Mon) by misc (subscriber, #73730) [Link]
Maybe Canonical plan to directly sell hardware in the futur ?
Details on Ubuntu's UEFI secure boot plan Posted Jun 25, 2012 15:53 UTC (Mon) by raven667 (subscriber, #5198) [Link]
> Maybe Canonical plan to directly sell hardware in the futur ?
Maybe, they certainly have hardware partners though that sell pre-loaded systems, like System76.
|
|||||||||||||