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
The channel | 474 comments | Create New Account
Comments belong to whoever posts them. Please notify us of inappropriate comments.
The channel
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, July 02 2012 @ 06:35 PM EDT
Not the manufacturer's key and not Canonical's key.

The manufacturer has to provide "the information necessary for users to run modified versions of the software."

That information could be how to install your own key (to run your own modified software "securely") or how to disable secure boot (to run your own modified software without the secure boot check).

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

  • The channel - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, July 02 2012 @ 06:48 PM EDT
Nobody has to provide a key, that's just wrong
Authored by: gdeinsta on Monday, July 02 2012 @ 09:11 PM EDT

They just have to stop distributing GPLv3 code for which they have no license, because they are not in compliance with GPLv3.

This thing about being forced to release a key is just like the myth about being forced to distribute your own source code if you abuse GPL2. All you have to do is stop illegally distributing stuff for which you don't have a license. All copyright allows you to do (and therefore all the GPL allows you to do) is stop people from violating your copyright, not force them to give their own stuff away.

And before you tell me that it is too complicated limiting your grub distributions to unlocked machines, go read the bizarre and complicated terms of a Windows OEM agreement. If people can manage it for Windows OEM they can sure as heck do it for the far simpler GPL3.

[ 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 )