If Canonical is responsible for all third party installations
regardless of the
hardware and software involved, then it is possible for a
third party to
construct a system which only accepts .deb updates signed by
Canonical's GPG
private key. This would force Canonical to either cease
distributing any GPL3
software in signed .debs, or release the GPG private key
used to sign them.
People could create systems to do all sorts of
things to Ubuntu system without making Canonical responsible.
If you go back
to the start of this thread, I don't say that Canonical is responsible. Rather
I say that FSF's view that it is instead the distributor who is responsible
isn't helpful to Canonical. If they want their product distributed, they need
to provide a solution that works for their distributors.
But if I were
Canonical and someone went the extra mile to make a system based on Ubuntu
violate GPLv3, I'd have no problem telling them that they shouldn't do that.
And if they do, they are on their own. [ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|