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
Im neither a shill nor a troll | 474 comments | Create New Account
Comments belong to whoever posts them. Please notify us of inappropriate comments.
Im neither a shill nor a troll
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, July 03 2012 @ 01:23 PM EDT
What I fail to understand is why the FSF cannot just allow Canononical to make their ree choice of which to use, and this is the part I find troublesome.
It's just a matter of who's freedom you are referring to.

You are saying that Canonical should be free to pick the bootloader that they wish to use.

FSF wants a GPLv3 bootloader because they feel this will provide more freedom -- for the end user.

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

Perhaps you can provide links to back that up?
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, July 04 2012 @ 04:37 PM EDT

You state:

My reading of the piece was that the FSF had gone to some lengths to try and persuade Canonical to use a GPL3 bootloader and now they have declined, they have "gone public" about it.
Perhaps you can point out where it identifies FSF had "gone to some lengths to try and persuade Canonical". And I'm not sure if you meant to say "FSF have gone public" or "Canonical have gone public" but just to clarify the timeline:
    Canonical went public with their decision outlining their interpretation of GPL v3
then
    FSF went public with their understanding of why Canonical is misstaken in Canonical's interpretation of GPL v3
So perhaps you could provide a link that shows FSF trying to pressure Canonical.... as opposed to simply trying to correct a mis-understanding on how to interpret a License.

As for your understanding that Canonical is planning on using a bootloader under GPL v2, I offer up the following from an article (knowing journalists easily get facts wrong):

Canonical has decided to use Intel's efilinux loader
And... it's not licensed under any version of the GPL. It's licensed under BSD. Which allows a proprietary company to wrap it up in a nice binary and not provide any source at all. Like when Microsoft took the BSD covered network protocols, changed them, then implemented them claiming compatibility.

Perhaps you could provide a link that identifies Canonical choosing a different bootloader then the one identified above?

RAS

[ 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 )