Fedora ARM and SecureBoot
aph at redhat.com
Mon Jun 11 09:14:21 UTC 2012
On 06/08/2012 06:37 PM, Adam Jackson wrote:
> 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".
Well, that depends. Can you change the program (in this case, a kernel)
and run it, or not? It's not a difficult or obscure question.
> 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.
I'm not objecting, I'm just trying to find out what's up.
More information about the devel