On Mon, 2006-12-18 at 11:38 +0000, Ciaran O'Riordan wrote: > Alex Hudson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > if you're supplying firewalls to > > people, and the firewalls are meddle-proof (which IMHO is a feature, in > > this instance), you'd be more or less forced to provide per-user > > binaries signed with different keys in order to comply (as I understand > > it, anyway), which is a bit of a burden. I suppose there are likely > > other technological solutions to that problem, though. > > It is a trivial burden because it's automate-able. Also we're only talking > about hardware manufacturers - people who have accepted the much bigger > burden of making a physical device.
We're not only talking about hardware manufacturers. Plenty of businesses resell hardware devices with added services; the GPL liability doesn't fall on the OEM of the hardware. Many resellers do little to the hardware other than slapping their own label on it. I would also disagree that maintaining a set of encryption keys for each customer, plus the infrastructure to make available binary updates tailored to each user (i.e., signed with their key), is a "trivial" burden. Compared to hosting a set of binaries on an FTP site, it's obviously more difficult by quite some way. Cheers, Alex. _______________________________________________ Fsfe-uk mailing list [email protected] http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/fsfe-uk
