*countable infinities only
dennis at ausil.us
Wed Jun 6 02:43:03 UTC 2012
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
El Tue, 05 Jun 2012 08:15:57 +0200
Tomas Mraz <tmraz at redhat.com> escribió:
> On Mon, 2012-06-04 at 21:30 -0500, Dennis Gilmore wrote:
> > 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.
> That's a total nonsense unless the restriction is by-license and not
> just technical obstacle. If it is just a technical obstacle in the
> code, you can remove it and run the software on any crippled machine
> at your will. So no, making your software not to work on particular
> machines does not make it non-free at all.
We don't allow software in fedora that has a license that has a usage
restriction that says it can not be used in a commercial environment
for instance. I do not see why we would allow software that says you can
use this as long as secureboot is off. it is essentially the same
thing. its a usage restriction.
im pretty sure that patching the GPL software to only run on a system
that does not have secureboot enabled at least falls into a grey area
if not plain violating the gpl
Why is the original BSD license incompatible with the GPL? (#OrigBSD)
Because it imposes a specific requirement that is not in the GPL; namely, the requirement on advertisements of the program. Section 6 of GPLv2 states:
You may not impose any further restrictions on the recipients'
exercise of the rights granted herein.
by patching software to only work on secureboot free systems your
placing additional restrictions on the user thats not covered by the
GPL thats my take, i dont profess to be a lawyer or to play one on tv
so there is every chance i am wrong.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2.0.18 (GNU/Linux)
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
More information about the devel