*countable infinities only

Dennis Gilmore dennis at ausil.us
Tue Jun 5 02:30:21 UTC 2012

Hash: SHA1

El Sat, 2 Jun 2012 12:18:17 -0400
Orcan Ogetbil <oget.fedora at gmail.com> escribió:
> On Sat, Jun 2, 2012 at 12:05 PM, Jesse Keating wrote:
> >
> > The only Freedom you've lost is that now, in addition to the
> > person-hours to do the work and monetary cost to host your bits or
> > generate physical media, you have an additional cost if you wish to
> > have your own cert that will be accepted out of the box by the next
> > generation of PC hardware.  You have as much equal footing as
> > Fedora does to plunk down the $99 and play along in the PC sandbox.
> >  That's a better deal than Fedora's gpg signing setup.
> >
> Hmm, will the package maintainers have the freedom to not support
> users who have the secureboot enabled? How are we going to detect
> this?

i look at it this way. if you patch your software to only run on
machines with secureboot disabled your software then becomes non free
and has to be removed from fedora.  this is becasuse you are placing
usage restrictions on it. depending on the license of the software
adding such a restriction would violate the license. I am not a lawyer
at all and never pretend to play one, but i do not think you as a
package maintainer can do that. an upstream could, but i imagine it
would be viewed in the same light as a commercial use restriction and
become non-free.

Version: GnuPG v2.0.18 (GNU/Linux)


More information about the devel mailing list