3 ms·
> No, the permissively-licensed shim compromise was the right choice. Why? Why on earth? IF Lenovo wanted to really ship a GPLv3 bootloader, all it imposes on
by AshamedCaptain 3y ago
> No, the permissively-licensed shim compromise was the right choice.
Why? Why on earth?
IF Lenovo wanted to really ship a GPLv3 bootloader, all it imposes on Lenovo is they ship a method to install your own bootloader keys. Do you really disagree with that?
Lenovo has already shipped hardware which requires magical incantations to install anything other than Windows (see Secured Core hardware). Why on earth anyone shipping FLOSS software would drop their pants to allow precisely this shitshow is over me.
- ajross 3y agoI'm not the person you should be arguing with. I didn't write the license and I'm not the judge that would have to make the decision. I was explaining why the collision between software freedom and end user security requirements (which is a very real thing!) is seen as a risk to the people shipping and supporting actual hardware.
- AshamedCaptain 3y agoThere is no collision _whatsoever_ between software freedom and security requirements. It's an illusion which happens to be highly convenient to those who want to promote an artificially controlled market and sell that as snake-oil security.