On Wed, Jun 6, 2012 at 4:51 PM, Paulo César Pereira de Andrade <paulo.cesar.pereira.de.andrade@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > 2012/6/6 drago01 <drago01@xxxxxxxxx>: >> On Wed, Jun 6, 2012 at 3:24 PM, Paulo César Pereira de Andrade >> <paulo.cesar.pereira.de.andrade@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: >>> 2012/6/5 Kevin Kofler <kevin.kofler@xxxxxxxxx>: >>>> Tomas Mraz wrote: >>>>> 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. >>>> >>>> That doesn't mean we should ship it in that state. >>>> >>>> If Fedora decides to support "Secure" Boot, it needs to be distro-wide. >>> >>> Could it be done in a "pretend to be supported mode", somewhat >>> like having a known public grub key, and then provide some Linux >>> certified stickers :-) Then let grub load any OS, or chain load windows >>> as usual. >> >> That makes no sense at all. >> >> 1) How would you get OEMs to support add that key? >> 2) How do you prevent malware authors to use this public available key >> to sign there malware? > > That is the part of "pretend to be supported", just to avoid needing > users to go to some setup mode to disable secure boot, and then > offer other means of security audit, like a custom boot image for > an external device. For windows, it could be some certified bootable > DVD, that would be guaranteed to be clean, and from there run > anti virus, or any scanning tools. Now back to reality ... how do you intend to support that? Talking about how things "should" be done is nice and all but not really productive. -- devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
