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
What if MS goes bust? | 474 comments | Create New Account
Comments belong to whoever posts them. Please notify us of inappropriate comments.
FSF Publishes Important Whitepaper on Secure Boot - Ubuntu Got It Wrong on Grub and GPLv3 ~pj
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, July 03 2012 @ 11:49 AM EDT
What Ubuntu is doing. Doesn't comply with GPL v3.
Where did that come from? Canonical is saying they are not going to use GPLv3 software (Grub2) so how can they not comply with it?

There isn't a whole lot of difference between the RedHat and Canonical approaches. RedHat is using two bootloaders. First a signed, non-GPLv3 prebootloader and second a GPLv3 (Grub2) one. Canonical is just using one signed, non-GPLv3 bootloader.

Ubuntu is following the Fedora approach, but with some misunderstandings about the GPL.
What misunderstanding? By their statements or solutions, RedHat, Canonical and FSF all seem to be saying that the key would need to be given out if the software was GPLv3. FSF just unhelpfully passes the responsibility on to the distributor.

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

FSF Publishes Important Whitepaper on Secure Boot - Ubuntu Got It Wrong on Grub and GPLv3 ~pj
Authored by: PJ on Tuesday, July 03 2012 @ 11:57 AM EDT
Is there some reason why you feel it
necessary to be so sneering about the
FSF approach? I mean, do what
you want about this problem, but
the sneering approach is never accurate,
you know. It's a propaganda ploy, not
a way to have a helpful discussion.

And if you think FSF is just a whiner,
might I point out that it's only because
of FSF's GPL that SCO and other greedy
types couldn't destroy Linux, which
is released under the GPL?

Don't be so snotty on Groklaw, please. Read
our comments policy. It's fine to disagree,
but not like that.

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

What if MS goes bust?
Authored by: sciamiko on Tuesday, July 03 2012 @ 12:02 PM EDT
If Microsoft goes bankrupt, who signs any new software for those machines? Or
any updated boot loaders?

Neither Fedora nor Ubuntu can guarantee anything if there is no one to sign
their new updates.

Is that an advantage? I'm with the FSF on this one.

s.

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

FSF Publishes Important Whitepaper on Secure Boot - Ubuntu Got It Wrong on Grub and GPLv3 ~pj
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, July 04 2012 @ 04:31 AM EDT
What the FSF is doing:

Public education, and informing people that Microsoft are being bastards, again.
But that this time they might actually have an effect.

Personally, calling for a boycott of all "Secure Boot" hardware would
feel very nice, but probably wouldn't be very effective. I will be
participating in it though. "Secure Boot" security theater, same as
the TSA, nothing more.

[ 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 )