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
No, it's as PolR described | 474 comments | Create New Account
Comments belong to whoever posts them. Please notify us of inappropriate comments.
"Defeats" may have been a poor choice of words
Authored by: pem on Tuesday, July 03 2012 @ 04:44 PM EDT
Let's say the Ubuntu approach "works around" some of the potential
technical problems with Restricted Boot -- those problems related to the user
being able to boot his choice of OS.

AFAICT, "Restricted Boot" is the FSFs description of a particularly
poor (from the user's POV) implementation of "Secure Boot." I don't
think any workaround of Restricted Boot that doesn't cause a problem with Secure
Boot would cause a key revocation.

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

No, it's as PolR described
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, July 03 2012 @ 04:45 PM EDT
Why would a vendor in fear of distributing a GPLv3 GRUB2 due to conflict between Microsoft and Canonical
That's not the issue. The distributor would have no licence to legally distribute GRUB2 unless they comply with GPLv3. And that means providing the key. The issue/conflict is between the distributor and the copyright holder of GRUB2 (FSF).

[ 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 )