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

[Marti Martinson]

Well, FWIW, I emailed my non-voting Congressional rep, the Speaker of
the House, and the Supreme Court (well, their contact for public
affairs). I guess I will try the Dept of Commerce, maybe even Defense,
since this would put pretty much all new computers under Microsoft
control.

Can we inundate officials email boxes with our concerns?  :)

On Wed, 2012-06-20 at 08:24 -0400, Keith Howell wrote:
> 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
> > 
> > 
> > 
> 
>