Linked by Thom Holwerda on Fri 22nd Jun 2012 23:17 UTC
Ubuntu, Kubuntu, Xubuntu After Fedora, Ubuntu has now also announced how it's going to handle the nonsense called "Secure" Boot. The gist: they'll use the same key as Fedora, but they claim they can't use GRUB2. "In the event that a manufacturer makes a mistake and delivers a locked-down system with a GRUB 2 image signed by the Ubuntu key, we have not been able to find legal guidance that we wouldn't then be required by the terms of the GPLv3 to disclose our private key in order that users can install a modified boot loader. At that point our certificates would of course be revoked and everyone would end up worse off." So, they're going to use the more liberally licensed efilinux loader from Intel. Only the bootloader will be signed; the kernel will not.
Permalink for comment 523481
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
ricegf
Member since:
2007-04-25

Good point, but you're missing mine.

Having the "government regulate what software and hardware we may make" is not the same as asking "Where are the lawyers" to pursue enforcement of existing anti-trust laws.

For example, a lawyer can sue (in the judicial branch) to stop Microsoft from using their dominance in the OS market to drive all competitors out of the web browser market in an effort to control the Internet.

But that's very different from the government (in the executive or legislative branch) specifically regulating what software can be made to browse the web.

Rephrased, citizens can leverage the government for anti-trust and consumer protection from dominant businesses without demanding that the government actively run those businesses.

Or yet another way, the government can function as the referee without also playing quarterback for one or both teams.

Hope I'm making the distinction clear.

Reply Parent Score: 3