On Sun, Dec 09, 2012 at 01:35:57PM -0500, Rich Freeman wrote: > On Sun, Dec 9, 2012 at 1:24 PM, Greg KH <gre...@gentoo.org> wrote: > > > > 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. > > Makes sense to me, thanks. > > An MS-signed bootloader isn't nearly as critical for Gentoo as it is > for other distros - we're not really aiming for the > stick-a-CD-in-and-you're-done crowd. If somebody can partition their > drive, build and install a kernel and grub, configure make.conf, and > build a system, then I'm not too concerned that they have to run some > script to generate a key, sign their bootloader, and register that key > with their firmware, or disable secure boot just to boot the install > CD (though it sounds like some firmwares just pop up a warning and let > you proceed, which is what my Chromebook does in dev mode).
The UEFI spec does not allow that mode of operation in secure boot mode, sorry. You will have to disable it in order to boot a Gentoo image, which is fine, but there's no reason why Gentoo can't use the MS-signed shim bootloader like all other distros are using, right? thanks, greg k-h
