The big problem is the layman's interpretation of the GPLv3. Canonical, the
FSF, and the free software development community understand what the license
really means and software like GRUB can be used without giving away a secret
key. The worry is there may be a loophole in GPLv3 that will force access to
the key or a support person may have to get the key or disable secure boot.
Microsoft does not want that scenario.
I'm guessing an employee at Dell or Microsoft or a lawyer went to Canonical
and strongly advised against using GPLv3 code. Either they did not do their
research or chose not to, but there is some figurehead putting up a roadblock
for Canonical. Canonical is trying to improve the adoption of their OS and
get it onto the hardware of big companies like Dell and will honestly do
anything to keep their lights on. If that means playing by their rules, they
will have to or else they lose a big contract and therefore have to
reconsider their business model.
I'm thinking the bigger issue is with the FSF worrying that GRUB (for which
they own the copyright too) will go into obscurity if the biggest distros do
not use it anymore. It could be a personal issue with the FSF even though
efilinux is under a BSD license, which is much less restrictive than a GPL
one.
Last I checked, the 2 and 3 clause BSD licenses are free software compatible
and sometimes recommended by Stallman for certain scenarios. We should all be
lucky that efilinux isn't closed source and is availble under a permissive
license.
