[DC LoCo] Mark Shuttleworth responds to: Any comment on the Ubuntu UEFI ruckus?

[Keith Howell]

All,

I wonder if anyone has considered using the legal system against this?

It looks like the spec has been written to restrict the signing to a
single commercial entity, Microsoft, that has a monetary incentive.

This sounds like restrictive trade practices or a monopoly. Given the
courts previous rulings against such restrictive practices, perhaps that
is the route to take.

Personally, I am not against a technology such as secure boot, but *I*
should be able to control the behavior. Even as far as loading my own
self-signed certificate into the device so that my own compiled code is
trusted.

-- 
Keith

On 06/20/2012 08:12 AM, Kevin Cole wrote:
> Any comment on the Ubuntu UEFI ruckus?
> 
> https://lists.ubuntu.com/archives/ubuntu-devel/2012-June/035387.html
> 
> Mark Shuttleworth mark at canonical.com <http://canonical.com> Wed Jun
> 20 00:29:27 UTC 2012
> 
> Previous message: Minutes from the Ubuntu Kernel Team meeting,
> 2012-06-19 Next message: Any comment on the Ubuntu UEFI ruckus? Messages
> sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
> 
> On 20/06/12 05:44, Steven J. Vaughan-Nichols wrote: > Matthew Garrett
> started it: > > http://mjg59.dreamwidth.org/13713.html > > and it's been
> "reported" on elsewhere but I wonder what you had to say > about it.
> 
> We've been working to provide an alternative to the Microsoft key, so
> that the entire free software ecosystem is not dependent on Microsoft's
> goodwill for access to modern PC hardware. We originally flagged the
> UEFI / SecureBoot transition as a major problem for free software, we
> lead the efforts to shape the specification in a more industry-friendly
> way, and we're pressing OEM partners for options that will be more
> broadly acceptable than Red Hat's approach.
> 
> SecureBoot retains flaws in its design that will ultimately mandate that
> Microsoft's key is on every PC (because of core UEFI driver signing).
> That, and the inability of SecureBoot to support multiple signatures on
> critical elements means that options are limited but we continue to seek
> a better result.
> 
> Mark
> 
> Previous message: Minutes from the Ubuntu Kernel Team meeting,
> 2012-06-19 Next message: Any comment on the Ubuntu UEFI ruckus? Messages
> sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
> 
> More information about the ubuntu-devel mailing list
> 
> 
>