|
|
|
| Authored by: jpvlsmv on Monday, July 02 2012 @ 03:10 PM EDT |
The problem is that the channel OEM wouldn't distribute Canonical's signing key
either (C wouldn't give it to them, and even if they did wouldn't want it
published all over the 'net), so under the FSF interpretation they can't legally
distribute the version of Ubuntu that they've pre-installed.
--Joe[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: SilverWave on Monday, July 02 2012 @ 03:18 PM EDT |
Hopefully PJ will address this concern in an update.
---
RMS: The 4 Freedoms
0 run the program for any purpose
1 study the source code and change it
2 make copies and distribute them
3 publish modified versions
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, July 02 2012 @ 03:30 PM EDT |
Trying to read things as broadly as possible, I think that the point is that the
distributor would be obligated to provide the means of signing an executable.
It would be completely appropriate for this to be done with a user-supplied key
pair, no need at all for it to use either an Ubuntu or a Microsoft private key.
What WOULD be out of bounds would be to provide a BIOS that only supports a
small number of pre-loaded proprietary keys.
It would also be inappropriate for a Linux distribution to be crafted in such a
way that only a particular proprietary key could be used to sign it.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, July 02 2012 @ 03:35 PM EDT |
IANAL: This is from a position of common sense, not a position of the Law.
As a result, I can only hope the Law sees this particular situation with common
sense. As a side-note the FSF has already confirmed my own opinions and
conclusions on the topic, so I think I'll stick with applying common sense
myself.
If a particular distributer decides to use hardware that is not
friendly towards the user's choice of installation of software:
How is that
Canonicals Fault?
Let me rephrase that slightly differently.There are
those of us who choose to grab a copy of the Linux Kernel from Kernel.org and
install that on the hardware of our choice. If we end up choosing a motherboard
that does not allow us to switch off secure boot:
How is that Linus Torvalds
fault?
The analogy is perfect*. Exact.
First party creates
software: Linus, Canonical
Third party chooses hardware: distributor,
me
In both cases, the hardware selected is one that is not user
friendly!
So... In what way do you believe the fault should flow up to the
first party?
If you want to blame anyone, place the blame squarely where
it belongs:
First: On the hardware manufacturer
Second: On the
entity that decided to use the hardware by said manufacturer.
Final note:
SCOG has shown us that one can raise a very costly lawsuit against anyone they
want even when they know they don't have a case - I present the two copyright
examinations (one by Santa Cruz, one by Caldera) that Darl McBride knew of
before raising the lawsuit against IBM which indicated no infringement as
evidence of my conclusion. As a result: logically there is nothing you can do
to avoid being sued. Don't let fear of lawsuits prevent you from proceeding.
Obviously I don't suggest to proceed in chaos. Take reasonable steps to ensure
you're not breaking the Law with what you do. If you do fear to the point you
do nothing, then those who want you to fear automatically win.
*: I know
the Linux kernel in and of itself is not "boot software". However, as I
understand, this isn't just for boot software control. The keys can and likely
will easily be extended for any software that goes on your computation device.
Otherwise... there really is no concern with installing the operating system of
your choice. Yet such a concern exists, therefore it must affect more then just
boot software.
RAS[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, July 02 2012 @ 06:27 PM EDT |
For the people talking about whether Canonical is
responsible if someone sues, I don't think that's what the
OP was referring to.
Canonical thinks that they have to provide THEIR private key
if someone wants to use a Restricted Boot system, and the
FSF is saying that it's the manufacturer's responsibility.
The question is this: Does that mean that the manufacturer
has to provide THEIR key in order to bypass restricted boot,
or does it have to provide CANONICAL's key? As long as it's
the manufacturer's key, then the FSF is right. But if it's
still Canonical's key, then I wholeheartedly agree with
Canonical's position.
Either way, within six months after the first Windows 8
computer on ARM comes out, someone needs to file anti-trust
complaints against Microsoft in both the DoJ and the EU. I'd
say do it now, but I don't think it has standing until the
product is actually released. Of course IANAL.
Have a great day:)
Patrick.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
|
|
