User: Password:
Subscribe / Log in / New account

Why not just chainload grub?

Why not just chainload grub?

Posted Jun 28, 2012 10:38 UTC (Thu) by jschrod (subscriber, #1646)
In reply to: Why not just chainload grub? by raven667
Parent article: Details on Ubuntu's UEFI secure boot plan

> > GPLv3 source request with *any keys*

> I don't believe this is true.

According to this week's Security page feature article, the FSF says that it's probably true. Thus, I can understand that Canonical is careful.

(Log in to post comments)

Why not just chainload grub?

Posted Jun 29, 2012 7:02 UTC (Fri) by raven667 (subscriber, #5198) [Link]

That is a horrible FAQ entry and could really use some further elaboration. The way the FAQ explains it undercuts the GPLv3 and inadvertently provides FUD for detractors to throw around.

Their secure boot specific FAQ doesn't say anything like that and specifically references Matt Garrett's documents on the matter. Fedora obviously doesn't think there is anything wrong with signing a GPLv3 GRUB2 and the FSF links to it as their explanation.

There is another thread along the same lines here A vendor shipping a signed, boot locked, GPLv3 GRUB2 would be a pirate, distributing without a valid copyright license. There are many way ways to resolve that, recalling/refund/RMA of hardware, a firmware update, etc where disclosing the private signing keys is the least likely method to achieve compliance, although it is a valid one.

Copyright © 2017, Eklektix, Inc.
Comments and public postings are copyrighted by their creators.
Linux is a registered trademark of Linus Torvalds