On Sat, Jun 2, 2012 at 4:02 PM, Matthew Garrett <mj...@srcf.ucam.org> wrote: > On Sat, Jun 02, 2012 at 03:28:03PM -0400, Gregory Maxwell wrote: > >> This should meet the signing requirements and it removes the opacity >> without locking down any of Fedora. Such a bootloader should meet >> whatever requirements to get signed, since if secureboot is turned on >> it wont boot anything at all. > > But you're happy to sacrifice the freedom for people to modify the error > text that's provided? What's your threshold?
I'm not quite sure where my threshold is, I'd have to think really hard on that. But I don't have to think hard about this particular example, because wherever the threshold a program that just displays a help screen on how to disable the restriction is on the least troublesome extreme of the continuum. In particular, I can just conclude that this bootloader is not free software. And that including a small piece of non-free-software that simply serves the purpose of helping the user figure out how to permit installing free software is unfortunate but is strictly less bad than the blobby firmware Fedora already ships. -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
