|
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, July 03 2012 @ 07:43 PM EDT |
No it's not what FSF said. It's what the SFLC said. And you
can trust their opinion.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, July 03 2012 @ 09:00 PM EDT |
Think about this: if I create a piece of GPL'd software and you add
functionality to it and distribute it, am I on the hook if my distributions fail
to include your source code?
But the example that Canonical gives
doesn't need to include software modification by the distributor. Rather, the
distributor can use stock Ubuntu binaries and just make a mistake in the
BIOS:
but in the event
that a manufacturer makes a mistake and
delivers a locked-down system
with a GRUB 2 image signed by the Ubuntu key, we
have not been able to
find legal guidance that we wouldn't then be required by
the terms of
the GPLv3 to disclose our private key in order that users can
install a
modified boot loader.
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
|
|