On Sat, Jul 07, 2012 at 11:09:57PM +0200, Andreas Barth wrote: > * Steve Langasek (vor...@debian.org) [120707 22:54]: > > On Fri, Jul 06, 2012 at 10:14:01AM +0200, Josselin Mouette wrote: > > > If OTOH we have to pay a fee just for our software to work on platforms > > > that just happen to be using Microsoft’s certificate, this is clearly > > > abusive. I would object to do so, and I believe we would (at least in > > > Europe) have a very strong case in court against such practice.
> > Note that the Windows 8 requirements stipulate that users must in all cases > > retain the ability to disable Secure Boot on their x86 systems from the > > firmware. It's really a question of ease of installation, and whether > > Secure Boot provides any additional security protection that we think it's > > worth providing to Debian users out of the box. > IIRC it's not the same on embedded hardware. The distinction is between x86 and ARM, and the Windows 8 cert requirements for ARM appear to have as their goal to prevent any other OS to be bootable on that hardware. So I don't think you should expect MS to sign any UEFI ARM bootloader binaries at all. -- Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS Debian Developer to set it on, and I can move the world. Ubuntu Developer http://www.debian.org/ slanga...@ubuntu.com vor...@debian.org -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20120707215813.gb24...@virgil.dodds.net
