|
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, July 03 2012 @ 06:14 AM EDT |
What FSF quite correctly point out is that Grub 2 under the GPL V3
does not
preclude having Grub 2 as a certified Secure Boot program.
GPL V3
does not legally require the release of the keys used by the computer
builder
any more than the weaker and much less satisfactory alternative licensed
boot
loader that Canonical intend to use.
Except that FSF
indicates:
In such situations, the computer distributor -- not
Canonical or Ubuntu -- would be the one responsible for providing the
information necessary for users to run modified versions of the
software.
What other information besides a key (to sign modified
versions) would allow the user to run modified versions?[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
- Grub2 - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, July 03 2012 @ 06:21 AM EDT
- Grub2 - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, July 03 2012 @ 06:26 AM EDT
- Grub2 - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, July 03 2012 @ 10:08 AM EDT
- Grub2 - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, July 03 2012 @ 10:24 AM EDT
- Grub2 - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, July 03 2012 @ 10:48 AM EDT
- Grub2 - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, July 03 2012 @ 11:02 AM EDT
- A Q from pj - Authored by: PJ on Tuesday, July 03 2012 @ 12:02 PM EDT
- A Q from pj - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, July 03 2012 @ 01:01 PM EDT
- A Q from pj - Authored by: PolR on Tuesday, July 03 2012 @ 02:39 PM EDT
- A Q from pj - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, July 03 2012 @ 03:00 PM EDT
- A Q from pj - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, July 03 2012 @ 07:09 PM EDT
- One small adgantage of Apple H/W - Authored by: complex_number on Wednesday, July 04 2012 @ 02:29 PM EDT
- Grub2 - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, July 03 2012 @ 10:46 AM EDT
- Grub2 - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, July 03 2012 @ 11:13 AM EDT
|
|
|
|