I don't know the details of the issue but I know that I was prevented from using grub on the livedvd.
Rich Freeman <ri...@gentoo.org> wrote: >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 >
