Then let's get UEFI support on our release media and out the box usb booting so users don't have to go boot other livecds.
likewhoa Greg KH <gre...@gentoo.org> wrote: >On Sun, Dec 09, 2012 at 01:13:38PM -0500, Rich Freeman wrote: >> On Sun, Dec 9, 2012 at 1:07 PM, Fernando Reyes >> <likew...@weboperative.com> wrote: >> > I don't know the details of the issue but I know that I was prevented from >> > using grub on the livedvd. >> >> Well, if some perceived legal constraint is keeping us from doing >> whatever seems to be technically most appropriate we should >> investigate the matter and resolve it. If, on the other hand, it >> simply makes sense to use something else, then no sense belaboring the >> point. >> >> People just seem to be really paranoid about GPLv3 and Grub. We're >> already talking to the FSF about how they handle copyright attribution >> on their own projects, so I suppose we could get their opinion on UEFI >> as well. However, I don't see anything in the language of the license >> that creates a problem when using it with UEFI, unless one wants to >> sell locked-down hardware. Doing that would be a violation of our >> social contract, let alone the GPLv3. > >The FSF has already said that using Grub2 and the GPLv3 is just fine >with the UEFI method of booting, so there is no problem from that side. >There's a statement about this somewhere on their site if you are >curious. > >The only one objecting to GPLv3 and UEFI is the current rules for >getting a shim/bootloader signed by Microsoft, but the current >implementations we have all have either a GPLv2 or BSD licensed shim >which then loads GRUB, so all is fine from a licensing and legal >standpoint from everyone involved. > >Hope this helps, > >greg k-h >
