Err... I think you're mistaken if you think Canonical have breached the
GPL.
Canonical put out a public expression on what they viewed to be a
problem with GPL v3 and secure boot.
FSF have put out a public expression
on why they think Canonical is mistaken in their interpretation.
All I
see is a public discussion on how secure boot is going to (notice that, it's not
present tense, it's future) have an effect on FLOSS.
I think you're
mistaken in thinking this has anything to do with current GPL
infringement.
To sum up:
Canonical is concerned with infringing the
GPL v3 in the future. Not Canonical themselves, but they fear if some
downstream distributor breaches GPL v3, then somehow Canonical will be required
to make amends.
As a result, they have taken a course of action to
avoid that potential infringement based on their understanding of how GPL v3
affects Grub in the secure boot world and something someone else might
do.
FSF has now told Canonical that Canonical is mistaken and need not
fear future infringement because it would be the distributor that would
be in breach - if breached distribution actually occurs.
If you really
think FSF believes Canonical is somehow in breach, I suggest you contact FSF
directly and ask them that question.
I have had reason to contact them
with questions in the past. They have answered questions I posed quite amicably
and consented to have their responses posted here on Groklaw.
RAS[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
| 
