There can be alternative authorities, and you could opt to choose them
nstead. It's really a question of having the option of not relying on
Mozilla's decisions. It's not a choice of either each individual's
own keys or the original authority who's the one true authority.
Self-signing means
On Tue, Jul 10, 2012 at 11:45 AM, Michael Schwendt mschwe...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, 10 Jul 2012 15:57:31 +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote:
Saying things like:
and arbitrary other people, who get their patch contributions merged,
don't gain any copyright protection on the file or the proper
You need to get the permission of everyone who contributed code to the
GPL'd codebase, to convert to the BSD license. Not sure I can comment
on translations. It's far easier to convert from BSD to GPL,
specifically because the BSD is so permissive. One theoretically
supposes somebody might have
On Mon, Jun 25, 2012 at 2:48 PM, Gregory Maxwell gmaxw...@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Jun 25, 2012 at 2:37 PM, Chris Murphy li...@colorremedies.com wrote:
I'm reading they're going to use a modified Intel efilinux, not writing a
new boot loader. And that they will not require either signed kernel
On Wed, Jun 20, 2012 at 11:04 AM, nomnex nom...@gmail.com wrote:
Things have changed. That's a good news (for once). Thanks for the
update.
Bravo, so apparently there is a leader on this, a free software UEFI
on its own trustworthy hardware, that hopefully will tell the truth to
the user about
Proceed to the next paragraph then. ;-)
Seth
On Wed, Jun 20, 2012 at 1:21 PM, Matthew Garrett mj...@srcf.ucam.org wrote:
On Wed, Jun 20, 2012 at 01:19:22PM -0400, Seth Johnson wrote:
On Wed, Jun 20, 2012 at 11:04 AM, nomnex nom...@gmail.com wrote:
Things have changed. That's a good news
Moral rights are from the Civil Code/French tradition. We don't do
moral rights, although certain interests keep trying. Moral rights in
the copyright context (I am unaware that they exist outside copyright)
are a right of attribution and a right of integrity. We don't have
these in the US
The positive/negative right formulation is a post-New Deal notion,
rooted in the question of whether it has been textually granted --
very different from the notion that we hold rights prior to
government. It may be that we can describe all rights regardless of
whether they are the result of
Minor clarifying insert:
On Tue, Jun 19, 2012 at 8:26 PM, Seth Johnson seth.p.john...@gmail.com wrote:
The positive/negative right formulation is a post-New Deal notion,
rooted in the question of whether it has been textually granted --
very different from the notion that we hold rights prior
On Mon, Jun 18, 2012 at 7:43 AM, Matthew Garrett mj...@srcf.ucam.org wrote:
On Mon, Jun 18, 2012 at 01:47:34AM -0400, Seth Johnson wrote:
On Mon, Jun 18, 2012 at 1:16 AM, Seth Johnson seth.p.john...@gmail.com
wrote:
I'm sorry, I really don't understand what you're suggesting here. It's
On Mon, Jun 18, 2012 at 8:54 AM, Peter Jones pjo...@redhat.com wrote:
On 06/18/2012 01:17 AM, Seth Johnson wrote:
On Mon, Jun 18, 2012 at 1:15 AM, Matthew Garrett mj...@srcf.ucam.org
wrote:
On Mon, Jun 18, 2012 at 01:09:52AM -0400, Jay Sulzberger wrote:
Bob Young, a master of propaganda
On Mon, Jun 18, 2012 at 8:59 AM, Matthew Garrett mj...@srcf.ucam.org wrote:
On Mon, Jun 18, 2012 at 08:45:07AM -0400, Seth Johnson wrote:
On Mon, Jun 18, 2012 at 7:43 AM, Matthew Garrett mj...@srcf.ucam.org wrote:
The features you wanted in a free software UEFI are present in existing
UEFI
On Mon, Jun 18, 2012 at 9:23 AM, Matthew Garrett mj...@srcf.ucam.org wrote:
On Mon, Jun 18, 2012 at 09:20:05AM -0400, Seth Johnson wrote:
It's apparently difficult to recognize Jay's argument, immediately
above. Jay did not say you currently cannot get an ARM key. I did
not present
On Mon, Jun 18, 2012 at 9:56 AM, Matthew Garrett mj...@srcf.ucam.org wrote:
On Mon, Jun 18, 2012 at 09:43:27AM -0400, Seth Johnson wrote:
On Mon, Jun 18, 2012 at 9:37 AM, Matthew Garrett mj...@srcf.ucam.org wrote:
Like I said before, the existing UEFI implementations on the existing
hardware
On Mon, Jun 18, 2012 at 10:10 AM, Matthew Garrett mj...@srcf.ucam.org wrote:
On Mon, Jun 18, 2012 at 10:04:38AM -0400, Seth Johnson wrote:
On Mon, Jun 18, 2012 at 9:56 AM, Matthew Garrett mj...@srcf.ucam.org wrote:
Ok so what you mean is I want a UEFI implementation that doesn't
require
On Mon, Jun 18, 2012 at 10:21 AM, Matthew Garrett mj...@srcf.ucam.org wrote:
On Mon, Jun 18, 2012 at 10:14:04AM -0400, Seth Johnson wrote:
On Mon, Jun 18, 2012 at 10:10 AM, Matthew Garrett mj...@srcf.ucam.org
wrote:
So you want Fedora to boot on all hardware sold?
I want Red Hat, Fedora
On Mon, Jun 18, 2012 at 10:48 AM, Kevin Fenzi ke...@scrye.com wrote:
On Mon, 18 Jun 2012 15:35:40 +0200
We really can't know whats going to happen down the road, we can only
act on it as we know it.
LOL -- by all the signs we have available to know it.
Seth
--
devel mailing list
On Mon, Jun 18, 2012 at 1:18 PM, Adam Williamson awill...@redhat.com wrote:
On Mon, 2012-06-18 at 09:35 -0700, Adam Williamson wrote:
I hesitate to put words in people's mouths, and correct me if I'm wrong,
but it reads to me as if Jay and others are arguing from an incorrect
premise. That
to be done can certainly
be done with some grace. But it's not the finesse that's needed at
this juncture you are now sitting in the middle of. It's the fight.
Seth Johnson
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
On Sun, Jun 17, 2012 at 8:09 PM, Matthew Garrett mj...@srcf.ucam.org wrote:
On Sun, Jun 17, 2012 at 07:54:17PM -0400, Seth Johnson wrote:
On Sat, Jun 16, 2012 at 7:26 PM, Reindl Harald h.rei...@thelounge.net
wrote:
Am 17.06.2012 01:14, schrieb Chris Murphy:
Please provide an example
On Mon, Jun 18, 2012 at 12:41 AM, Jay Sulzberger j...@panix.com wrote:
On Mon, 18 Jun 2012, Gerald Henriksen ghenr...@gmail.com wrote:
Not to mention that you are effectively telling anyone not currently
using Red Hat Hardware that they can't run Linux, thus eliminating
the ability to gain
On Mon, Jun 18, 2012 at 12:58 AM, Matthew Garrett mj...@srcf.ucam.org wrote:
On Mon, Jun 18, 2012 at 12:54:56AM -0400, Seth Johnson wrote:
But the best thing is that a free software UEFI would let anybody put
their own key as hardware root, and this would stymie the
rationalizing of big shots
On Mon, Jun 18, 2012 at 1:14 AM, Matthew Garrett mj...@srcf.ucam.org wrote:
On Mon, Jun 18, 2012 at 01:00:33AM -0400, Seth Johnson wrote:
On Mon, Jun 18, 2012 at 12:58 AM, Matthew Garrett mj...@srcf.ucam.org
wrote:
On Mon, Jun 18, 2012 at 12:54:56AM -0400, Seth Johnson wrote
On Mon, Jun 18, 2012 at 1:15 AM, Matthew Garrett mj...@srcf.ucam.org wrote:
On Mon, Jun 18, 2012 at 01:09:52AM -0400, Jay Sulzberger wrote:
The game is now just about over. What if one day, Microsoft
makes it even harder to install Fedora without a Microsoft
controlled key? What if, as has
On Mon, Jun 18, 2012 at 1:16 AM, Seth Johnson seth.p.john...@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Jun 18, 2012 at 1:14 AM, Matthew Garrett mj...@srcf.ucam.org wrote:
On Mon, Jun 18, 2012 at 01:00:33AM -0400, Seth Johnson wrote:
On Mon, Jun 18, 2012 at 12:58 AM, Matthew Garrett mj...@srcf.ucam.org
wrote
25 matches
Mail list logo
