User: Password:
Subscribe / Log in / New account

Why not just chainload grub?

Why not just chainload grub?

Posted Jun 29, 2012 7:02 UTC (Fri) by raven667 (subscriber, #5198)
In reply to: Why not just chainload grub? by jschrod
Parent article: Details on Ubuntu's UEFI secure boot plan

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.

(Log in to post comments)

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