On Sat, Jun 2, 2012 at 6:23 PM, drago01 <drago01@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > It can be argued both ways. Modifying software requires more "skills" > and knowlegde anyway so it is more acceptable to accept that group of > people to fiddle with the firmware then everyone including people that > don't even know what a firmware is. Come on lets not discuss the > obvious .. My personal ability to disable the cryptographic lockdown— or to choose hardware where isn't in question— it's the ability of people I redistribute the software to that is relevant. If it were not then I could simply answer your desire to ship signed binaries with "Just disable that option on your computer, tada, no problems". If thats not a viable an option for Fedora as whole, it's not an option to someone who is executing the rights Fedora is required to pass on either. I don't personally think there is any ambiguity in this regard the social contract created via copyleft licenses, if people do then perhaps it's time to strike a new one. [No disrespect intended, but I'm not point by pointing the rest because I think the educated reader could easily enough anticipate my responses from the past thread, we're becoming circular again] -- devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
