On 23/06/12 08:53, Colin Watson wrote:
(Not using GRUB 2 is definitely a second-class option as far as we're
concerned, so if the FSF ever makes it clear that this wouldn't be a
problem for us, I suspect we will gladly reverse our boot loader
position.)
in the light of the whitepaper the FSF have produced
http://www.fsf.org/campaigns/secure-boot-vs-restricted-boot/whitepaper-web
has the position on GRUB 2 changed?
I am a bit curious about this paragraph too:
"No representative from Canonical contacted the FSF about these issues
prior to announcing the policy. This is unfortunate because the FSF, in
addition to being the primary interpreter of the license in question, is
the copyright holder of GRUB 2, the main piece of GPLv3-covered software
at issue."
Alan.
--
I work at http://libertus.co.uk
--
ubuntu-devel mailing list
ubuntu-devel@lists.ubuntu.com
Modify settings or unsubscribe at:
https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel
