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.
Thread beginning with comment 523685
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Delgarde
Member since:
2008-08-19

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.


What makes you think this breaches existing anti-trust laws? Because while I agree that it's intended as an anti-competitive move, the courts will see that Microsoft are *requiring* their vendors to provide a "disable secure-boot" function, which kind of defeats the argument. Not only that, they're offering (for a nominal charge) a certificate service to competitors who might lack the influence to get their own certificates distributed by vendors.

So, you still think enforcing existing anti-trust laws will help?

Reply Parent Score: 2

ricegf Member since:
2007-04-25

What makes you think this breaches existing anti-trust laws?


I didn't make that assertion. You are leaping from a theoretical argument (that anti-trust enforcement isn't the same as the government running a business) to a specific claim that I didn't make (that Microsoft controlling the ability to load signed operating system images on PCs breaches existing law).

The latter would require a court ruling to know for sure.

Because while I agree that it's intended as an anti-competitive move, the courts will see


You would also need a court ruling to know what "the courts will see", of course. Unless you're just expressing hope, which is a pretty weak argument.

However, when a company that HAS been determined by the courts to hold an illegal monopoly on PC operating systems makes an "anti-competitive move" in that business area, as you claim... then yes, it makes sense for the Justice Department to act in preparing and (if the facts justify it) bringing to court an anti-trust action.

So, you still think enforcing existing anti-trust laws will help?


Obviously, yes.

More important, while signed boot images would only provide a minor additional layer of defense, if the PC industry goes to the trouble to add it, they might as well do it right. And "right" includes an independent signing authority.

Reply Parent Score: 2