It is exactly the issue:
Why would a vendor shipping a Windows
8 Logo'd device capable of even running an Ubuntu-signed bootloader be concerned
about shipping a GPLv3-licensed bootloader that merely requires instructions on
how to install one's own key and not be concerned about shipping a
non-GPLv3-licensed bootloader that defeats Secure Boot
entirely?
I'm not sure how this relates to a "Why would a vendor
in fear of distributing a GPLv3 GRUB2 due to conflict between Microsoft and
Canonical" that I said wasn't the issue. Again, the reason/fear for not using
GRUB2 is unrelated to the Microsoft/Canonical relationship.
Now, why did
Canonical choose to go the non-GPLv3 route for their bootloader? They explain
one reason in their blog at
https://lists.ubuntu.com/archives/ubuntu-devel/2012-June/035445.html. They
worry about a vendor making a mistake and delivering a locked-down system. All
it would take is one mistake, and the key would need to be released to remain in
compliance with GPLv3. Also, on ARM, installing one's own key isn't an option. [ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
| 
