On Sat, Jun 2, 2012 at 5:32 AM, drago01 <drago01@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > Or you don't do the later and just disable secureboot. Your freedom is > in *no way* limited by having secureboot support. > Let me repeat it again supporting secureboot on x86 does *NOT* limit > your freedom. After all this discussion you'll still make that claim? I feel insulted. When I create a fork, respin, or remix of Fedora and distribute it to people it will not run for them like Fedora does without a level of fiddling which the people advocating this have made clear is entirely unacceptable. This is because Fedora will be cryptographically signing the distribution with keys these systems require and not sharing the keys with me. Fedora be doing this even with software that I wrote, enhancing it with a signing key only they have access too, making it much more useful on hardware where it is not otherwise, and not allowing me and or downstream recipients to enjoy the same improvements for their modified versions. What is unclear about this? Let me offer this in the form of a question: "Why don't Fedora developers just disable SecureBoot on their own systems and not bother implementing anything with it in the distribution?" -- devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
