[Linux-aus] UEFI secure boot

[Bianca Gibson]

Please don't talk about *when*, there is already enough misinformation
floating around about this. ZDnet taking the automatically generated
response as a sign there are definitely grounds to go after MS really didn't
help, especially since a lot of people then think a more exaggerated version
of what they read. Today I had someone tell me we were already going after
MS in court.

To try and prevent the misinformation getting worse, I'd really appreciate
you saying 'if'. I know you didn't mean anything bad by it, but take into
account that media will be reading this and not necessarily read it
thoroughly before reporting, so we need to watch out. I had unclear wording
just before as well.


On 5 October 2011 23:26, Luke Martinez <me at luke.asia> wrote:

> Ah, well that's the evil in it all. We can't really make them assume
> responsibility for the boot locking. Because they don't require them to
> provide the ability to turn it off. As in, in court they could just say, "
> we didn't force them, speak to the oems ."
>
> Hopefully that argument wont stand up when we fight them in court.*
>
> Luke Martinez,
> Me at luke.asia
>
> *unfortunantly its looking less of an if, more of a When.
>
> -- android 2.3.4 custom build - sorry for the spelling.
> On Oct 5, 2011 10:55 PM, "Bianca Gibson" <ringwraithenator at gmail.com>
> wrote:
> > Sorry, I didn't write clearly.
> > I meant that it doesn't require OEMs to allow the UEFI to be disabled or
> for
> > users to add their own keys, as said in the article you (Luke) linked.
> >
> > Thanks, Bianca.
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.linux.org.au/pipermail/linux-aus/attachments/20111005/22f0f579/attachment.htm