> 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.
It's clear that the part of the GPLv3 requiring providing Installation Information applies only to giving/selling physical products, information how to disable Secure Boot is sufficient for that and this part doesn't apply to Canonical unless they (not other vendors) sell the machines. I don't see any way how copyright would force sharing the key, they could decide to stop selling the machines with infringing firmware instead (as it was in some other GPL violation cases). > 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. This isn't one of these scenarios. libvorbis being under a BSD license leads to Vorbis being used in more software instead of patented codecs which would have worse free software support in the US. The point here is that we want to be able to install modified versions of the bootloader or the kernel on our machines, being able to read the source is not enough for us to control our computing.
pgpFa7IfO9F2C.pgp
Description: PGP signature
