Groklaw - Digging for Truth

	When you want to know more...

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

You won't find me on Facebook

Donate

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:

On servers donated to ibiblio by AMD.

Webmaster

That doesn't make sense | 474 comments | Create New Account

Comments belong to whoever posts them. Please notify us of inappropriate comments.

That doesn't make sense

Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, July 02 2012 @ 03:59 PM EDT

I suspect that will equate to picking a name brand PC

I guess that should be picking a name brand device. Since today PC == x86 and that will have the ability to turn off secure boot.

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

What does that have to do with Legal Liability?

Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, July 02 2012 @ 04:08 PM EDT

If Canonical wants to work with - for example - Dell to distribute Canonical on Dell hardware.... let them.

What does that have to do with Dell doing something which breaches a license (any license, FLOSS or proprietary) and Canonical being responsible?

RAS

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

It's not just about keeping Canonical out of court - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, July 02 2012 @ 04:25 PM EDT
- It's not just about keeping Canonical out of court - Authored by: rsteinmetz70112 on Monday, July 02 2012 @ 05:25 PM EDT
  - For GRUB there is no third party - Authored by: bugstomper on Monday, July 02 2012 @ 06:03 PM EDT
    - For GRUB there is no third party - Authored by: rsteinmetz70112 on Monday, July 02 2012 @ 10:51 PM EDT
- ROFL - and what if one of those distributors is Psystar? - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, July 02 2012 @ 07:04 PM EDT
  - ROFL - and what if one of those distributors is Psystar? - Authored by: rsteinmetz70112 on Monday, July 02 2012 @ 11:10 PM EDT
    - How does a user have standing for a lawsuit? - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, July 03 2012 @ 10:02 AM EDT
      - How does a user have standing for a lawsuit? - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, July 04 2012 @ 02:01 PM EDT
        Given by whom? - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, July 04 2012 @ 02:22 PM EDT
        Given by whom? - Authored by: Wol on Wednesday, July 04 2012 @ 05:46 PM EDT

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 )