'You have to divulge your private key' meme [LWN.net]

'You have to divulge your private key' meme

Posted Jul 3, 2012 14:02 UTC (Tue) by rich0 (guest, #55509)
In reply to: 'You have to divulge your private key' meme by davidescott
Parent article: The FSF's advice to distributors on UEFI secure boot

I think the key words in your post are "their partners."

If somebody loads Ubuntu on a system and ships it without Canonical's knowledge/participation, then Ubuntu can't be sued over this. They're not a party - they distributed GPLv3 software under the GPLv3, and it is the duty of anybody doing redistribution to comply with the license. In the same way you can't sue some contributor to Grub over something Canonical does with it.

However, if Canonical enters into some kind of agreement with the system vendor then I'd think that would change things legally. Now Canonical is complicit in the distribution in some way, especially if money starts changing hands.

If you violate the GPL that is none of my concern, but if I pay you to violate the GPL then legally I'm more entangled. Apple can't claim they don't distribute iOS because Foxconn does the image loading, and so on.

(Log in to post comments)

'You have to divulge your private key' meme

Posted Jul 3, 2012 21:33 UTC (Tue) by jspaleta (subscriber, #50639) [Link]

With that Apple/Foxconn analogy you seem to be implying that Canonical is paying equipment vendors to install and load Ubuntu at their behest. Apple pays Foxconn and Apple keeps final say and control over configuration details.

I'm not sure there is any evidence of that actually happening in the case of Canonical. If anything, it seems the other way around. OEMs pay Canonical for engineering support to integrate Ubuntu..but ultimately OEMs have final say and control over what actually ships. Though if you have any evidence of Canonical paying OEMs to get Ubuntu into devices, I'd love to see it. I've heard rumors in the past but I could never pin down a credible statement on or off the record.

Devils in the details of the contractual agreement that we will never actually be able to read. So anything with regard to how the partnership agreement deals with licensing liability or provides for indemnification or hold harmless clauses with respect to one for-profit entity or the other. The partnership agreement can say pretty much anything to try to shield one entity from liability inherent in the actions of the other. There's no point in speculating about what one entity is contractually obligated to do for the other. Whatever the concern is, it would be best for everyone if the concern was discussed between the FSF the parties who have knowledge of the agreement.

Though I will say, if Canonical entered into a contractual agreement with another entity that allowed the other entity to hold Canonical up as a liability shield..that would be a real head scratcher. I've read over the Harmony contributor agreements in full and so far it seems Canonical goes to great lengths to make sure they don't open themselves up to any implicit liability from contributors who are contributing to GPL licensed Canonical projects. I would be _shocked_ if they allowed themselves to be scapegoated by business partners looking to duck out of legal liability when it comes to GPL licensing in other contexts. So really I think this whole line of discussion is quite absurd.

-jef