On Sat, Jul 07, 2012 at 02:48:59PM -0600, Steve Langasek wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 06, 2012 at 10:14:01AM +0200, Josselin Mouette wrote:
> > If OTOH we have to pay a fee just for our software to work on platforms
> > that just happen to be using Microsoft’s certificate, this is clearly
> > abusive. I would object to do so, and I believe we would (at least in
> > Europe) have a very strong case in court against such practice.
>
> Note that the Windows 8 requirements stipulate that users must in all cases
> retain the ability to disable Secure Boot on their x86 systems from the
> firmware. It's really a question of ease of installation, and whether
> Secure Boot provides any additional security protection that we think it's
> worth providing to Debian users out of the box.
This argument seems to depend on how thoroughly Microsoft will enforce
their Windows 8 requirements. AFAIU, the fact that Windows 8
requirements might, at least theoretically, be disattended is something
that played a role also in Canonical/Ubuntu decision to stay away from
Grub. All in all, it doesn't seem wise to rely on the fact that Windows
8 requirements will be enforced, especially when disattending them gives
an advantage to Microsoft, by making it even harder to install other
OSs.
Cheers.
--
Stefano Zacchiroli zack@{upsilon.cc,pps.jussieu.fr,debian.org} . o .
Maître de conférences ...... http://upsilon.cc/zack ...... . . o
Debian Project Leader ....... @zack on identi.ca ....... o o o
« the first rule of tautology club is the first rule of tautology club »
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature