|
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, July 02 2012 @ 03:54 PM EDT |
That's funny:
Relying on hardware manufacturers to provide FLOSS
developers with enough information they (the developers) can support the
hardware.
Sorry, perhaps I'm a little too used to the past. I'm more
familiar with the FLOSS developers supporting hardware in spite of the
activities of the hardware manufacturers.
On that note: A huge galaxy
wide thank you to all those FLOSS developers who have put in time supporting the
hardware!
RAS[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, July 02 2012 @ 04:46 PM EDT |
The FSF seem deliberately avoid the obvious Canonical concern that one of their
business partners would be put in a position where the partner would need to
cough up the Canonical key to avoid being sued over violating the GPL. Using
the GPL3 on a boot loader in this case just brings in a lot of complexities that
no business wants to deal with. If I was a business that needed to ship system
with Secure Boot, and wanted to support Linux. I'd certainly prefer to go with
the non-GPL3 bootloader just to avoid potential legal hassles.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, July 03 2012 @ 08:21 AM EDT |
I don't see what the problem with updates is.
Updates are just software. Surely by distributing only
software Canonical can't be liable to making it run on every
computer?
For hardware vendors the issue is different, because the GPL
mandates that the *preinstalled* software can be replaced.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
|
|