[DC LoCo] Mark Shuttleworth responds to: Any comment on the Ubuntu UEFI ruckus?

[Jeremy C.]

Change.org would be a great place to set up a well-thought plea for
supporters to take action.

You could also add in Act.ly


On Wed, Jun 20, 2012 at 11:30 AM, Marti Martinson <
arthur.martinson at verizon.net> wrote:

> Well, FWIW, I emailed my non-voting Congressional rep, the Speaker of
> the House, and the Supreme Court (well, their contact for public
> affairs). I guess I will try the Dept of Commerce, maybe even Defense,
> since this would put pretty much all new computers under Microsoft
> control.
>
> Can we inundate officials email boxes with our concerns?  :)
>
> On Wed, 2012-06-20 at 08:24 -0400, Keith Howell wrote:
> > All,
> >
> > I wonder if anyone has considered using the legal system against this?
> >
> > It looks like the spec has been written to restrict the signing to a
> > single commercial entity, Microsoft, that has a monetary incentive.
> >
> > This sounds like restrictive trade practices or a monopoly. Given the
> > courts previous rulings against such restrictive practices, perhaps that
> > is the route to take.
> >
> > Personally, I am not against a technology such as secure boot, but *I*
> > should be able to control the behavior. Even as far as loading my own
> > self-signed certificate into the device so that my own compiled code is
> > trusted.
> >
> > --
> > Keith
> >
> > On 06/20/2012 08:12 AM, Kevin Cole wrote:
> > > Any comment on the Ubuntu UEFI ruckus?
> > >
> > > https://lists.ubuntu.com/archives/ubuntu-devel/2012-June/035387.html
> > >
> > > Mark Shuttleworth mark at canonical.com <http://canonical.com> Wed Jun
> > > 20 00:29:27 UTC 2012
> > >
> > > Previous message: Minutes from the Ubuntu Kernel Team meeting,
> > > 2012-06-19 Next message: Any comment on the Ubuntu UEFI ruckus?
> Messages
> > > sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
> > >
> > > On 20/06/12 05:44, Steven J. Vaughan-Nichols wrote: > Matthew Garrett
> > > started it: > > http://mjg59.dreamwidth.org/13713.html > > and it's
> been
> > > "reported" on elsewhere but I wonder what you had to say > about it.
> > >
> > > We've been working to provide an alternative to the Microsoft key, so
> > > that the entire free software ecosystem is not dependent on Microsoft's
> > > goodwill for access to modern PC hardware. We originally flagged the
> > > UEFI / SecureBoot transition as a major problem for free software, we
> > > lead the efforts to shape the specification in a more industry-friendly
> > > way, and we're pressing OEM partners for options that will be more
> > > broadly acceptable than Red Hat's approach.
> > >
> > > SecureBoot retains flaws in its design that will ultimately mandate
> that
> > > Microsoft's key is on every PC (because of core UEFI driver signing).
> > > That, and the inability of SecureBoot to support multiple signatures on
> > > critical elements means that options are limited but we continue to
> seek
> > > a better result.
> > >
> > > Mark
> > >
> > > Previous message: Minutes from the Ubuntu Kernel Team meeting,
> > > 2012-06-19 Next message: Any comment on the Ubuntu UEFI ruckus?
> Messages
> > > sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
> > >
> > > More information about the ubuntu-devel mailing list
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
>
>
>
> --
> Ubuntu-us-dc mailing list
> Ubuntu-us-dc at lists.ubuntu.com
> Modify settings or unsubscribe at:
> https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-us-dc
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.ubuntu.com/archives/ubuntu-us-dc/attachments/20120620/0774b485/attachment.html>