On Jun 14, 2007, Rob Landley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Thursday 14 June 2007 13:46:40 Alexandre Oliva wrote:
>> Well, then, ok: do all that loader and hardware signature-checking >> dancing, sign the image, store it in the machine, and throw the >> signing key away. This should be good for the highly-regulated areas >> you're talking about. And then, since you can no longer modify the >> program, you don't have to let the user do that any more. Problem >> solved. > A) Does that actually satisfy the terms of GPLv3? I think so: this requirement does not apply if neither you nor any third party retains the ability to install modified object code on the User Product > If so, can't they just wait until they get sued and destroy the keys > then? I don't think this woulnd't satisfy the above. -- Alexandre Oliva http://www.lsd.ic.unicamp.br/~oliva/ FSF Latin America Board Member http://www.fsfla.org/ Red Hat Compiler Engineer [EMAIL PROTECTED], gcc.gnu.org} Free Software Evangelist [EMAIL PROTECTED], gnu.org} - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
