UEFI Secure Boot and Ubuntu - implementation

[Scott Kitterman]

On Monday, July 02, 2012 01:04:58 PM Alan Bell wrote:
> 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."

I think it's at least indirectly addressed in this interview:

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2012/07/06/shuttleworth_responds_uefi/

Scott K