|
|
|
| Authored by: PolR on Tuesday, July 03 2012 @ 03:23 PM EDT |
| There is a Ubuntu on ARM so it
is not clear to me that Canonical are concerned with mistakes. They may want
Ubuntu available on ARM-based computers that also support Windows. In this
scenario the ARM-based computer will be required by Microsoft to use Restricted
Mode.
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: pem on Tuesday, July 03 2012 @ 03:36 PM EDT |
<blockquote>
The FSF's concern is now that Canonical isn't using the GPLv3 GRUB2 that there's
one less legal tool to prevent a hardware vendor enabling Restricted Boot on
purpose.
</blockquote>
If Canonical delivers (as they say they will) a non GPL v3 bootloader that will
boot pretty much anything, that technically defeats Restricted Boot for systems
that use Canonical's bootloader signed by Canonical.
But it also gives a tool to the next Tivo -- they can use a modified version of
Canonical's bootloader, with a key they sign themselves, to have a protected
boot chain into Linux that can't be modified on that system. The next Tivo
could have happened anyway, but it would have been more work due to having to
maintain the bootloader themselves.
Canonical's approach will allow anybody to run any Linux they want on any device
they can run Ubuntu on, and <i>might</i> increase the number of
devices that can do this, via the keysigning mechanism and agreement with
Microsoft.
The FSF's approach would make it harder, but not impossible, to make a
restricted boot Tivo using Linux, but that might come at the cost of having a
lot more systems that are Windows-only and can't boot into any Linux.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
|
|
