On 11/5/19 4:11 AM, Florian Weimer wrote: > The FSF has given out an award in support of Secure Boot-related work, > so its approach to the matter is rather ambiguous.
Looking through fsf.org I couldn't find any award in support of "Secure Boot" related work, would you mind pointing me to it? The FSF seems to have a very clear position on "Secure Boot" vs. "Restricted Boot", and has been running a campaign opposing "Restricted Boot" for the best part of this decade: https://www.fsf.org/campaigns/campaigns-summaries#secureboot > I knew this would happen and wrote extensively against Secure Boot. > That became a futile exercise when the FSF started supporting it, too. AFAIK, the only thing the FSF said is that when implemented correctly, Secure Boot" is designed to protect the user against malware. They urged manufacturers to respect user freedoms when implementing "Secure Boot" by doing it correctly. How you interpret this as support for "Secure Boot"?
