|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, July 02 2012 @ 09:49 AM EDT |
There is a lot of confusion about the four patents Apple is
asserting to justify the injunction against the Galaxy Nexus.
I would be very grateful, PJ, if you would help clear up this
confusion.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, July 02 2012 @ 12:56 PM EDT |
It had to happen. In a
whitepaper published over the weekend, FSF Executive Director John
Sullivan informs (among other things):
Our main concern with the
Ubuntu plan is that because they are afraid of falling out of compliance with
GPLv3, they plan to drop GRUB 2 on Secure Boot systems, in favor of another
bootloader with a different license that lacks GPLv3's protections for user
freedom. Their stated concern is that someone might ship an Ubuntu Certified
machine with Restricted Boot (where the user cannot disable it). In order to
comply with GPLv3, Ubuntu thinks it would then have to divulge its private key
so that users could sign and install modified software on the restricted
system.
This fear is unfounded and based on a misunderstanding of GPLv3. We
have not been able to come up with any scenario where Ubuntu would be forced to
divulge a private signing key because a third-party computer manufacturer or
distributor shipped Ubuntu on a Restricted Boot machine. 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.
Ed L (not logged in)[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
|
|
