Fedora ARM and SecureBoot
ajax at redhat.com
Fri Jun 8 17:37:59 UTC 2012
On Fri, 2012-06-08 at 18:14 +0100, Andrew Haley wrote:
> On 06/08/2012 05:42 PM, Adam Jackson wrote:
> > And - though it pains me that this next thought might actually be
> > unpopular, though closer investigation might reveal that I'm giving the
> > feature too much credit, and without considering or conceding whether
> > such a machine would be non-free - I'm pretty sure I am willing to
> > sacrifice a minor technical point of software freedom for real gains in
> > human freedom.
> I suppose I don't know what minor technical point of software freedom
> you're talking about. I presume it's not the freedom to change a
> program so it does your computing as you wish, which is scarcely a
> minor anything.
It's more like "is building or supporting a machine with this kind of
lockdown intrinsically non-free". At least, that's an objection I've
heard, from people trying to equate SB with DRM or the DMCA, which is a
bit fallacious, or from the "Microsoft is involved so it must be bad"
crowd. SB's just a technology, I believe positive use can be made of
it, and DFSG 6 cuts both ways.
I didn't intend to make it sound like you were advocating that kind of
objection, I apologize if I put words in your mouth there.
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Size: 198 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
More information about the devel