|
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, July 03 2012 @ 11:49 AM EDT |
What Ubuntu is doing. Doesn't comply with GPL v3.
Where did that come from? Canonical is saying they are not going
to use GPLv3 software (Grub2) so how can they not comply with it?
There
isn't a whole lot of difference between the RedHat and Canonical approaches.
RedHat is using two bootloaders. First a signed, non-GPLv3 prebootloader and
second a GPLv3 (Grub2) one. Canonical is just using one signed, non-GPLv3
bootloader.
Ubuntu is following the Fedora approach, but with
some
misunderstandings about the GPL.
What misunderstanding? By
their statements or solutions, RedHat, Canonical and FSF all seem to be saying
that the key would need to be given out if the software was GPLv3. FSF just
unhelpfully passes the responsibility on to the distributor.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: PJ on Tuesday, July 03 2012 @ 11:57 AM EDT |
Is there some reason why you feel it
necessary to be so sneering about the
FSF approach? I mean, do what
you want about this problem, but
the sneering approach is never accurate,
you know. It's a propaganda ploy, not
a way to have a helpful discussion.
And if you think FSF is just a whiner,
might I point out that it's only because
of FSF's GPL that SCO and other greedy
types couldn't destroy Linux, which
is released under the GPL?
Don't be so snotty on Groklaw, please. Read
our comments policy. It's fine to disagree,
but not like that.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: sciamiko on Tuesday, July 03 2012 @ 12:02 PM EDT |
If Microsoft goes bankrupt, who signs any new software for those machines? Or
any updated boot loaders?
Neither Fedora nor Ubuntu can guarantee anything if there is no one to sign
their new updates.
Is that an advantage? I'm with the FSF on this one.
s.
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, July 04 2012 @ 04:31 AM EDT |
What the FSF is doing:
Public education, and informing people that Microsoft are being bastards, again.
But that this time they might actually have an effect.
Personally, calling for a boycott of all "Secure Boot" hardware would
feel very nice, but probably wouldn't be very effective. I will be
participating in it though. "Secure Boot" security theater, same as
the TSA, nothing more.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
|
|