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

[Marti Martinson]

Since I am the creator, I can edit the text. If someone here does have
more tech wording they would like to see, let me know.

On Wed, 2012-06-20 at 12:41 -0400, Marti Martinson wrote:
> 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
> > 
> > 
> 
> 
>