|
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, July 03 2012 @ 06:46 AM EDT |
Whoever said anything about a key? The question here is what
happens if a PC hardware distributor distributes Ubuntu 1m.no on a Restricted
Boot -- as opposed to Secure Boot -- system. It is extremely hypothetical, since
"Windows 8 Certified" explicitly requires Secure Boot, not Restricted Boot.
GPLv3 Grub2 can work with the former, but not the latter.
But we
are not just dealing with PCs. The ARM version of Ubuntu is used extensively on
embedded/non-PC devices and has been for years. When you are designing for
Freescale's iMX or TI's OMAP chips, the reference BSP that you get is
Ubuntu.
It would be violation of Grub2 copyright to distribute it
on a Restricted Boot system. One has no license to do that. So doing would be
the distributor's problem, between them and the Grub2 copyright holder (FSF).
Canonical need not be involved, save to make explicitly clear that this is the
case.
As commented in other articles, saying it isn't Canonical's
problem isn't really helpful. They are supposed to tell their distributors that
they have to figure out what to do -- what bootloader they can use -- on their
own? That wouldn't be very good for Canonical's business.
If it
were to happen, FSF would no doubt offer their usual choice of remedies: either
(1) fix the bug and show existing customers how to work around it e.g. reflash
UEFI bios with either an operational Secure Boot or Clear Boot,
In
other words, create a non-Windows 8 Logo device. But the whole point here is
about how to run Ubuntu on Windows 8 Logo devices. The distributor might not be
a hardware manufacturer after all.
Unless of course the distributor
deliberately installed Ubuntu on a purpose-built Restricted Boot system. But the
only legitimate reason for so doing would be (alleged)
uber-security
One other legitimate reason: it isn't a PC you're
putting Ubuntu on. Again, the problem that's being tackled here is putting
Ubuntu on Windows 8 Logo devices. So if it is a non-PC, it'll have Restricted
Boot, not Secure Boot.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
- Thanks. (nt) - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, July 03 2012 @ 11:25 PM EDT
|
|
|
|