|
Authored by: pem on Tuesday, July 03 2012 @ 04:44 PM EDT |
Let's say the Ubuntu approach "works around" some of the potential
technical problems with Restricted Boot -- those problems related to the user
being able to boot his choice of OS.
AFAICT, "Restricted Boot" is the FSFs description of a particularly
poor (from the user's POV) implementation of "Secure Boot." I don't
think any workaround of Restricted Boot that doesn't cause a problem with Secure
Boot would cause a key revocation.
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, July 03 2012 @ 04:45 PM EDT |
Why would a vendor in fear of distributing a GPLv3 GRUB2 due to
conflict between Microsoft and Canonical
That's not the issue.
The distributor would have no licence to legally distribute GRUB2 unless they
comply with GPLv3. And that means providing the key. The issue/conflict is
between the distributor and the copyright holder of GRUB2 (FSF).[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
|
|