On Mon, 2012-06-04 at 21:30 -0500, Dennis Gilmore wrote:
> El Sat, 2 Jun 2012 12:18:17 -0400
> Orcan Ogetbil <oget.fedora@xxxxxxxxx> escribió:
> > On Sat, Jun 2, 2012 at 12:05 PM, Jesse Keating wrote:
> > >
> > > The only Freedom you've lost is that now, in addition to the
> > > person-hours to do the work and monetary cost to host your bits or
> > > generate physical media, you have an additional cost if you wish to
> > > have your own cert that will be accepted out of the box by the next
> > > generation of PC hardware. You have as much equal footing as
> > > Fedora does to plunk down the $99 and play along in the PC sandbox.
> > > That's a better deal than Fedora's gpg signing setup.
> > >
> >
> > Hmm, will the package maintainers have the freedom to not support
> > users who have the secureboot enabled? How are we going to detect
> > this?
>
> i look at it this way. if you patch your software to only run on
> machines with secureboot disabled your software then becomes non free
> and has to be removed from fedora. this is becasuse you are placing
> usage restrictions on it. depending on the license of the software
> adding such a restriction would violate the license. I am not a lawyer
> at all and never pretend to play one, but i do not think you as a
> package maintainer can do that. an upstream could, but i imagine it
> would be viewed in the same light as a commercial use restriction and
> become non-free.
That's a total nonsense unless the restriction is by-license and not
just technical obstacle. If it is just a technical obstacle in the code,
you can remove it and run the software on any crippled machine at your
will. So no, making your software not to work on particular machines
does not make it non-free at all.
--
Tomas Mraz
No matter how far down the wrong road you've gone, turn back.
Turkish proverb
--
devel mailing list
devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
