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
Very carefully worded | 474 comments | Create New Account
Comments belong to whoever posts them. Please notify us of inappropriate comments.
ROFL
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, July 02 2012 @ 03:54 PM EDT

That's funny:

    Relying on hardware manufacturers to provide FLOSS developers with enough information they (the developers) can support the hardware.
Sorry, perhaps I'm a little too used to the past. I'm more familiar with the FLOSS developers supporting hardware in spite of the activities of the hardware manufacturers.

On that note: A huge galaxy wide thank you to all those FLOSS developers who have put in time supporting the hardware!

RAS

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

Very carefully worded
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, July 02 2012 @ 04:46 PM EDT
The FSF seem deliberately avoid the obvious Canonical concern that one of their
business partners would be put in a position where the partner would need to
cough up the Canonical key to avoid being sued over violating the GPL. Using
the GPL3 on a boot loader in this case just brings in a lot of complexities that
no business wants to deal with. If I was a business that needed to ship system
with Secure Boot, and wanted to support Linux. I'd certainly prefer to go with
the non-GPL3 bootloader just to avoid potential legal hassles.

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

Very carefully worded
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, July 03 2012 @ 08:21 AM EDT
I don't see what the problem with updates is.

Updates are just software. Surely by distributing only
software Canonical can't be liable to making it run on every
computer?

For hardware vendors the issue is different, because the GPL
mandates that the *preinstalled* software can be replaced.

[ 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 )