|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, July 04 2012 @ 04:01 AM EDT |
From your quote:
"In such situations, the computer distributor -- not Canonical or Ubuntu --
would be the one responsible for providing the information necessary for users
to run modified versions of the software".
Doesn't that explicitly state the computer distributor is on the hook for
providing a way around restricted boot?
Also, how do updates from Canonical work?[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, July 04 2012 @ 09:41 AM EDT |
Mark Shuttleworth said yesterday that the SFLC (aka Eben
Moglen, who was the legal counsel for the GPLv3) had advised
them that FSF _could_ require Ubuntu to divulge the private
key: the GPLv3 is deliberately written that this is
possible, as it should be, to ensure you can always control
and modify the software on your computer.
FSF have said that they can't envision a situation where
they would require the key. Well, I can't envision a
situation in which I would want to divorce my wife,
nonetheless, divorces have been know to happen. Not being
able to imagine something is different to the power to do
it.
Agatha Christie(?) pointed out that if there's a gun on the
fireplace lintel in Act 1, then by Act 3 someone will have
been shot dead. (I'm certain I've got lots of that wrong,
but the idea is right.)
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
|
|
