|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, July 03 2012 @ 12:24 PM EDT |
The point of the FSF explanation is that
Ubuntu doesn't have any
liability so it
doesn't have to ask anybody for immunity.
To me it
is a distinction without a significant difference. Canonical can't reasonably
choose a solution that removes their liability but creates one for the
distributors. Especially in light of this FSF statement, I wouldn't want to be
a distributor of Ubuntu-based systems with signed Grub 2.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: pem on Tuesday, July 03 2012 @ 03:49 PM EDT |
But there are two issues that I didn't see the FSF address:
(1) They didn't address how a vendor could make an ARM system that satisfies
Microsoft's requirements and can use a GPLv3 bootloader when not booting
Windows. I understand they aren't interested in supporting this scenario, but
if Windows 8 on ARM is any good, it is difficult for me to envision a scenario
where millions of these units aren't shipped. Lawmakers and courts just don't
move fast enough to forestall this. The FSF is willing to sacrifice those units
for the greater good, but Canonical would rather get Linux established ASAP on
the next generation of computation devices. Reasonable people can disagree as
to which approach is better, especially since Linux "lost" on the
desktop.
(2) They didn't address whether, if the contract between the vendor and
Canonical specifies that Canonical will provide updates directly (as they
usually do), those updates would be considered to be software provided as part
of the initial transaction. A simplistic reading of the contract and laws like
the UCC could indicate that this might be the case, which would put Canonical
itself in the position of insuring that others can install software on the
vendors' units.
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
- Hmmm... - Authored by: Wol on Tuesday, July 03 2012 @ 05:57 PM EDT
|
|
|
|
