| 1 |
On Sun, Dec 09, 2012 at 01:13:38PM -0500, Rich Freeman wrote: |
| 2 |
> On Sun, Dec 9, 2012 at 1:07 PM, Fernando Reyes |
| 3 |
> <likewhoa@××××××××××××.com> wrote: |
| 4 |
> > I don't know the details of the issue but I know that I was prevented from using grub on the livedvd. |
| 5 |
> |
| 6 |
> Well, if some perceived legal constraint is keeping us from doing |
| 7 |
> whatever seems to be technically most appropriate we should |
| 8 |
> investigate the matter and resolve it. If, on the other hand, it |
| 9 |
> simply makes sense to use something else, then no sense belaboring the |
| 10 |
> point. |
| 11 |
> |
| 12 |
> People just seem to be really paranoid about GPLv3 and Grub. We're |
| 13 |
> already talking to the FSF about how they handle copyright attribution |
| 14 |
> on their own projects, so I suppose we could get their opinion on UEFI |
| 15 |
> as well. However, I don't see anything in the language of the license |
| 16 |
> that creates a problem when using it with UEFI, unless one wants to |
| 17 |
> sell locked-down hardware. Doing that would be a violation of our |
| 18 |
> social contract, let alone the GPLv3. |
| 19 |
|
| 20 |
The FSF has already said that using Grub2 and the GPLv3 is just fine |
| 21 |
with the UEFI method of booting, so there is no problem from that side. |
| 22 |
There's a statement about this somewhere on their site if you are |
| 23 |
curious. |
| 24 |
|
| 25 |
The only one objecting to GPLv3 and UEFI is the current rules for |
| 26 |
getting a shim/bootloader signed by Microsoft, but the current |
| 27 |
implementations we have all have either a GPLv2 or BSD licensed shim |
| 28 |
which then loads GRUB, so all is fine from a licensing and legal |
| 29 |
standpoint from everyone involved. |
| 30 |
|
| 31 |
Hope this helps, |
| 32 |
|
| 33 |
greg k-h |
Archives