On Sun, Dec 09, 2012 at 01:13:38PM -0500, Rich Freeman wrote: > On Sun, Dec 9, 2012 at 1:07 PM, Fernando Reyes > <likew...@weboperative.com> wrote: > > I don't know the details of the issue but I know that I was prevented from > > using grub on the livedvd. > > Well, if some perceived legal constraint is keeping us from doing > whatever seems to be technically most appropriate we should > investigate the matter and resolve it. If, on the other hand, it > simply makes sense to use something else, then no sense belaboring the > point. > > People just seem to be really paranoid about GPLv3 and Grub. We're > already talking to the FSF about how they handle copyright attribution > on their own projects, so I suppose we could get their opinion on UEFI > as well. However, I don't see anything in the language of the license > that creates a problem when using it with UEFI, unless one wants to > sell locked-down hardware. Doing that would be a violation of our > social contract, let alone the GPLv3.
The FSF has already said that using Grub2 and the GPLv3 is just fine with the UEFI method of booting, so there is no problem from that side. There's a statement about this somewhere on their site if you are curious. The only one objecting to GPLv3 and UEFI is the current rules for getting a shim/bootloader signed by Microsoft, but the current implementations we have all have either a GPLv2 or BSD licensed shim which then loads GRUB, so all is fine from a licensing and legal standpoint from everyone involved. Hope this helps, greg k-h
