decoration decoration
Stories

GROKLAW
When you want to know more...
decoration
For layout only
Home
Archives
Site Map
Search
About Groklaw
Awards
Legal Research
Timelines
ApplevSamsung
ApplevSamsung p.2
ArchiveExplorer
Autozone
Bilski
Cases
Cast: Lawyers
Comes v. MS
Contracts/Documents
Courts
DRM
Gordon v MS
GPL
Grokdoc
HTML How To
IPI v RH
IV v. Google
Legal Docs
Lodsys
MS Litigations
MSvB&N
News Picks
Novell v. MS
Novell-MS Deal
ODF/OOXML
OOXML Appeals
OraclevGoogle
Patents
ProjectMonterey
Psystar
Quote Database
Red Hat v SCO
Salus Book
SCEA v Hotz
SCO Appeals
SCO Bankruptcy
SCO Financials
SCO Overview
SCO v IBM
SCO v Novell
SCO:Soup2Nuts
SCOsource
Sean Daly
Software Patents
Switch to Linux
Transcripts
Unix Books

Gear

Groklaw Gear

Click here to send an email to the editor of this weblog.


You won't find me on Facebook


Donate

Donate Paypal


No Legal Advice

The information on Groklaw is not intended to constitute legal advice. While Mark is a lawyer and he has asked other lawyers and law students to contribute articles, all of these articles are offered to help educate, not to provide specific legal advice. They are not your lawyers.

Here's Groklaw's comments policy.


What's New

STORIES
No new stories

COMMENTS last 48 hrs
No new comments


Sponsors

Hosting:
hosted by ibiblio

On servers donated to ibiblio by AMD.

Webmaster
Allowing me to write my own key -- not an option for Restricted Boot unfortunately | 474 comments | Create New Account
Comments belong to whoever posts them. Please notify us of inappropriate comments.
Allowing me to write my own key -- not an option for Restricted Boot unfortunately
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, July 03 2012 @ 12:00 PM EDT
If Canonical is responsible for all third party installations regardless of the hardware and software involved, then it is possible for a third party to construct a system which only accepts .deb updates signed by Canonical's GPG private key. This would force Canonical to either cease distributing any GPL3 software in signed .debs, or release the GPG private key used to sign them.
People could create systems to do all sorts of things to Ubuntu system without making Canonical responsible.

If you go back to the start of this thread, I don't say that Canonical is responsible. Rather I say that FSF's view that it is instead the distributor who is responsible isn't helpful to Canonical. If they want their product distributed, they need to provide a solution that works for their distributors.

But if I were Canonical and someone went the extra mile to make a system based on Ubuntu violate GPLv3, I'd have no problem telling them that they shouldn't do that. And if they do, they are on their own.

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

Groklaw © Copyright 2003-2013 Pamela Jones.
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective owners.
Comments are owned by the individual posters.

PJ's articles are licensed under a Creative Commons License. ( Details )