On Monday, July 02, 2012 01:04:58 PM Alan Bell wrote: > On 23/06/12 08:53, Colin Watson wrote: > > (Not using GRUB 2 is definitely a second-class option as far as we're > > concerned, so if the FSF ever makes it clear that this wouldn't be a > > problem for us, I suspect we will gladly reverse our boot loader > > position.) > > in the light of the whitepaper the FSF have produced > http://www.fsf.org/campaigns/secure-boot-vs-restricted-boot/whitepaper-web > has the position on GRUB 2 changed? > > I am a bit curious about this paragraph too: > > "No representative from Canonical contacted the FSF about these issues > prior to announcing the policy. This is unfortunate because the FSF, in > addition to being the primary interpreter of the license in question, is > the copyright holder of GRUB 2, the main piece of GPLv3-covered software > at issue."
I think it's at least indirectly addressed in this interview: http://www.theregister.co.uk/2012/07/06/shuttleworth_responds_uefi/ Scott K -- ubuntu-devel mailing list ubuntu-devel@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel
