You have the background to provide a legal justification for that?
Playing the game automatically concedes defeat
Posted Jan 26, 2013 6:15 UTC (Sat) by cas (subscriber, #52554)
What I do have is a functioning memory and a reasonable ability to extrapolate from similar concepts.
By playing Microsoft's game you are implicitly accepting their terms and conditions, or as i said the first time around, legitimising Microsoft's *right* to terminate your boot key according to whatever rules they choose.
Actually, it's worse than that - to get a key signed by MS you have to *explicitly* accept their terms and conditions (BTW, do they have a clause saying they can unilaterally change them at any time?). It would be extremely unlikely for a court to invalidate such a consciously chosen and legal agreement.
Appeasement on the secureboot issue may be good, cheap, and convenient policy for RH and other corporate linux vendors. Not for anyone else.
Posted Jan 26, 2013 6:24 UTC (Sat) by mjg59 (subscriber, #23239)
No, but having some ability to actually support contentions like "By playing Microsoft's game you are implicitly accepting their terms and conditions" is pretty important if you want anyone to pay any attention to what you're saying.
"Do you have one?"
No, but I've spent a significant amount of time speaking to lawyers about Secure Boot over the past 18 months, which is more than you seem to have done.
Posted Jan 26, 2013 6:36 UTC (Sat) by cas (subscriber, #52554)
BTW, I note that you didn't comment on my "to get a key signed by MS you have to *explicitly* accept their terms and conditions" paragraph. I take it you have no glib logical fallacy at hand to distract from that so settled on the Ignore It And It Might Go Away technique?
Posted Jan 26, 2013 6:45 UTC (Sat) by raven667 (subscriber, #5198)
Posted Jan 26, 2013 8:29 UTC (Sat) by cas (subscriber, #52554)
I expect that any lawyers he has spoken to about secureboot would have been Redhat's lawyers, and their angle on the problem would have been entirely on the topic of Redhat's corporate needs, and how to solve the problem for RH in the most efficiently pragmatic way possible.
Pragmatism doesn't always conflict with idealism but this is one case where it definitely does.
Posted Jan 26, 2013 11:48 UTC (Sat) by paulj (subscriber, #341)
Posted Jan 27, 2013 16:18 UTC (Sun) by mathstuf (subscriber, #69389)
That said, it would be nice to have some clarification of what they think the fallout of Microsoft revoking a Linux key (both for "but h4x" and "because market share[holders]" scenarios) would likely be.
Posted Jan 27, 2013 16:38 UTC (Sun) by mjg59 (subscriber, #23239)
Posted Jan 26, 2013 6:52 UTC (Sat) by mjg59 (subscriber, #23239)
"to get a key signed by MS you have to *explicitly* accept their terms and conditions"
Have you read those terms and conditions? Have you consulted a lawyer to determine precisely which rights you're giving up? Or are you just asserting that they're unreasonable without any justification at all?
Posted Jan 26, 2013 8:18 UTC (Sat) by cas (subscriber, #52554)
My point is that it is entirely unreasonable to have to beg Microsoft's permission to run anything. So unreasonable that the only reasonable response is to refuse to have anything to do with it.
By agreeing to *ANY* conditions, no matter how benign or light-weight they might be, you are conceding that Microsoft does indeed have a right to grant or deny such permission.
You mean well and have good intentions, but you are enabling Microsoft in their aim to be gatekeeper of what software is permitted to execute. Aside from the old adage about the road to hell, the trouble with your work is that it is short-sighted and short-term pragmatism (you have what appears to be a technical problem and want to solve it now) with no regard for the long-term consequences. One day you will realise exactly what you have enabled and come to bitterly regret it. Unfortunately, you won't be the only one to suffer the consequences.
Copyright © 2017, Eklektix, Inc.
Comments and public postings are copyrighted by their creators.
Linux is a registered trademark of Linus Torvalds