On Wed, Feb 6, 2013 at 2:42 PM, Christophe Fergeau <cfergeau@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Fri, Feb 01, 2013 at 05:03:31PM +0100, Zeeshan Ali (Khattak) wrote: >> On Wed, Jan 30, 2013 at 10:26 AM, Christophe Fergeau >> <cfergeau@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> > On Tue, Jan 29, 2013 at 04:49:05PM +0200, Zeeshan Ali (Khattak) wrote: >> >> On Tue, Jan 29, 2013 at 11:15 AM, Christophe Fergeau >> >> <cfergeau@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> >> > On Mon, Jan 28, 2013 at 10:54:52PM +0200, Zeeshan Ali (Khattak) wrote: >> >> >> On Mon, Jan 28, 2013 at 6:13 PM, Christophe Fergeau <cfergeau@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> >> >> > On Mon, Jan 28, 2013 at 06:05:53PM +0200, Zeeshan Ali (Khattak) wrote: >> >> >> >> whats the difference between copyleft and free, as in Free Software? >> >> >> >> Reading this, I don't see any: >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyleft >> >> >> > >> >> >> > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyleft#Types_of_copyleft_and_relation_to_other_licenses >> >> >> >> >> >> OK, I stand corrected about the exact definition of copyleft. :) >> >> >> >> >> >> Since you are stressing on this distinction, I imagine you know some >> >> >> free drivers out there that are signed? >> >> > >> >> > Nope, but that does not mean they do not exist. >> >> >> >> Well then I'm just not being very precise in my commit log. With the >> >> API I'm proposing, Apps can easily decide to not use unsigned drivers >> >> even if script supports it. So I don't see the need for Apps to have >> >> to use a configuration parameter to disable this manually. >> > >> > https://www.redhat.com/archives/libosinfo/2013-January/msg00108.html >> >> I already replied to that: > > You tried to reply, then we had a discussion about the wrong assumption on > which you based the 2nd paragraph. With that 2nd paragraph removed, this > does not leave a lot of compelling reasons for always disabling, even when > not needed, something that improves the security of the system. Why not let apps decide that? We are giving them info on the signed status of drivers and they can make an informed decision. If this "security" was so black-and-white, MS wouldn't have made it so easily to disable it. >> I'm not going to make it configurable unless you can suggest a >> solution for the problem mentioned in the first para. > > You are the one who wants to be able to install unsigned drivers, one would > think it's up to you to try to suggest good ways of achieving that. I'm > personnally fine with not being to install unsigned drivers without getting > warnings (which solves your 'not configurable' requirement). That would break unattended installation and I don't understand how can you even think about breaking that for the user, even if it adds any "security" (that apps will have the API to make an informed decision about). -- Regards, Zeeshan Ali (Khattak) FSF member#5124 _______________________________________________ Libosinfo mailing list Libosinfo@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/libosinfo
