On Thu, 2010-04-01 at 09:24 +1100, James Morris wrote: > On Wed, 31 Mar 2010, Eric Paris wrote: > > > At the time the objection to this configuration option was that the > > technology was all predicated on a closed source binary blob signed by > > Intel. In private discussions it was learned that there was no chance > > that the module would ever be open sourced and we learned that hardware > > is not capable of recognizing signatures of a module from other vendors > > (aka Fedora can't sign our own version.) > > Also, why is there no chance of this being open sourced? Simple answer is 'because Intel says so.' I'm sorry but I don't think I'm allowed to divulge any reasons Intel may or may not have shared with Red Hat. I will say that a large sticking point is the fact that even if it was open source the requirement that it be signed by an Intel key to function would still have made the SINIT AC module unacceptable to fedora. Something so closely tied to hardware needs to be dealt with by the hardware vendors and IBM has agreed to take that step. -Eric _______________________________________________ kernel mailing list kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/kernel
