decoration decoration
Stories

GROKLAW
When you want to know more...
decoration
For layout only
Home
Archives
Site Map
Search
About Groklaw
Awards
Legal Research
Timelines
ApplevSamsung
ApplevSamsung p.2
ArchiveExplorer
Autozone
Bilski
Cases
Cast: Lawyers
Comes v. MS
Contracts/Documents
Courts
DRM
Gordon v MS
GPL
Grokdoc
HTML How To
IPI v RH
IV v. Google
Legal Docs
Lodsys
MS Litigations
MSvB&N
News Picks
Novell v. MS
Novell-MS Deal
ODF/OOXML
OOXML Appeals
OraclevGoogle
Patents
ProjectMonterey
Psystar
Quote Database
Red Hat v SCO
Salus Book
SCEA v Hotz
SCO Appeals
SCO Bankruptcy
SCO Financials
SCO Overview
SCO v IBM
SCO v Novell
SCO:Soup2Nuts
SCOsource
Sean Daly
Software Patents
Switch to Linux
Transcripts
Unix Books

Gear

Groklaw Gear

Click here to send an email to the editor of this weblog.


You won't find me on Facebook


Donate

Donate Paypal


No Legal Advice

The information on Groklaw is not intended to constitute legal advice. While Mark is a lawyer and he has asked other lawyers and law students to contribute articles, all of these articles are offered to help educate, not to provide specific legal advice. They are not your lawyers.

Here's Groklaw's comments policy.


What's New

STORIES
No new stories

COMMENTS last 48 hrs
No new comments


Sponsors

Hosting:
hosted by ibiblio

On servers donated to ibiblio by AMD.

Webmaster
FSF Publishes Important Whitepaper on Secure Boot - Ubuntu Got It Wrong on Grub and GPLv3 ~pj | 474 comments | Create New Account
Comments belong to whoever posts them. Please notify us of inappropriate comments.
FSF Publishes Important Whitepaper on Secure Boot - Ubuntu Got It Wrong on Grub and GPLv3 ~pj
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, July 03 2012 @ 12:35 PM EDT
So for Canonical to say they are "afraid" of obligations under the GPLv3 when the copyright holder and creator of the GPL says they don't need to be afraid, is dispositive. It's not a business issue. It's a legal issue, and Canonical is wrong.
Specifically FSF says that Canonical does not have an obligation, but their distributors do as long as Canonical chooses Grub2.

As has been stated many times in other threads, Canonical needs to be concerned for their distributors. So I see it as a minor point to say that the distributor needs to release the key rather than Canonical. Is that the mistake you refer to? After all, where would the distributor get the key from?

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

FSF Publishes Important Whitepaper on Secure Boot - Ubuntu Got It Wrong on Grub and GPLv3 ~pj
Authored by: PolR on Tuesday, July 03 2012 @ 03:07 PM EDT
I am afraid the legal issue is only half of the picture. Having the legal half
right doesn't negate the other half.

The other half is whether Canonical have a business interest in making sure
their distributors are not liable under the GPL 3 when they distribute Ubuntu on
computers carrying the Windows 8 logo. Remember that the paying clients of
Canonical are the hardware vendors which rely on Canonical expertise to make
Ubuntu work fine on their hardware. These vendors will not like having to choose
between being in breach of the GPL 3 and being in breach of their contract with
Microsoft. Given this alternative they will avoid distributing GPL 3 software.
If Canonical want to keep their paying clients happy they have to care about
that.

I am afraid Microsoft have found a way to make for profit Linux distributors
cave in for business reasons.

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

Groklaw © Copyright 2003-2013 Pamela Jones.
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective owners.
Comments are owned by the individual posters.

PJ's articles are licensed under a Creative Commons License. ( Details )