On 1/16/06, mage <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > larry price wrote: > Does this mean that if you have a method for cryptographically > authenticating system software at boot that you have to include the > private key that allows you to sign your kernel binaries...? > > The way I read it, in light of the preamble, is that if you have encrypted > the software, then you have to include the passwords and/or codes needed to > install or use the software. This would prohibit demo-like software that > you release for free, but must buy the access codes to actually use the rest > of it. This would also prohibit selling a disc that would install only > certain pieces without an access code, but you must buy a code to get the > rest from the disc.
The way I read it, this narrowing of the definition of what is source code covers not only the situations you mention, but also makes it difficult to run software covered by this license on any Trusted Computing [1] platform for which the user of the software does not possess the key. This is most likely the intended result, although the net effect will be to deny legal access to Free Software for users of certain classes of device. [2] An outcome which is probably desired both by the FSF and the manufacturers of such devices...if not by the end users. This is actually a good thing, if any of the branded computer manufacturers decide to start shipping boxes with a TPM [3] to which they did not give the final purchaser the ability to define the private key, would have to contend with a large number of customers setting up a righteous stink, since they wouldn't have free use of their own property, or the ability to modify their own software or to use more recent versions of battle-tested Free Software. 1. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trusted_computing 2. eg. xBox360 3. http://www.google.com/search?q=trusted+platform+module
_______________________________________________ EUGLUG mailing list [email protected] http://www.euglug.org/mailman/listinfo/euglug
