[DC LoCo] Mark Shuttleworth responds to: Any comment on the Ubuntu UEFI ruckus?
Marti Martinson
arthur.martinson at verizon.net
Wed Jun 20 16:41:22 UTC 2012
OK, change.org:
http://www.change.org/petitions/department-of-commerce-stop-microsoft-monopoly-of-secure-boot-certificates-on-future-pc-hardware#
Marti
On Wed, 2012-06-20 at 11:49 -0400, Jeremy C. wrote:
> 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
>
>
More information about the Ubuntu-us-dc
mailing list