On Sun, Dec 9, 2012 at 12:23 PM, Fernando Reyes <likew...@weboperative.com> wrote: > grub seems out of the questions because of licensing issues.
What licensing issues? Just distribute the source. If the Gentoo Foundation goes into the hardware business and starts distributing hardware that only boots Gentoo-signed grub bootloaders then we'll have to distribute our private key. Or we could just be intelligent and not distribute hardware that only boots Gentoo-signed grub bootloaders. For some reason everybody goes nuts over UEFI and GPLv3. The license isn't any more unclear about that than anything else that people go nuts over the GPL about. GPLv3 states: If you convey an object code work under this section in, or with, or specifically for use in, a User Product, and the conveying occurs as part of a transaction in which the right of possession and use of the User Product is transferred to the recipient in perpetuity or for a fixed term (regardless of how the transaction is characterized), the Corresponding Source conveyed under this section must be accompanied by the Installation Information. You only need to provide installation information if "the conveying occurs as part of a transaction in which the right of possession and use of the User Product is transferred to the recipient in perpetuity or for a fixed term." So, as long as Gentoo doesn't distribute hardware, we aren't bound by that clause. If somebody else distributes hardware that only boots Gentoo-signed GRUB bootloaders then they'll need to distribute the Gentoo private keys along with them or they can be sued by the Grub copyright holders. If they ask us for said keys we'll just say no, and they can fight it out with the FSF. We aren't the ones distributing Grub out of compliance, so we haven't violated the license. If somebody has a specific licensing-related concern we can always have the Foundation/ licensing team look into it, as we are already doing with the copyright attribution question. Rich
