There can be alternative authorities, and you could opt to choose them
nstead. It's really a question of having the option of not relying on
Mozilla's decisions. It's not a choice of either each individual's
own keys or the "original authority who's the one true authority."
Self-signing means cho
On Tue, Jul 10, 2012 at 11:45 AM, Michael Schwendt wrote:
> On Tue, 10 Jul 2012 15:57:31 +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote:
>
>> Saying things like:
>>
>> "and arbitrary other people, who get their patch contributions merged,
>> don't gain any copyright protection on the file or the proper parts of
>>
You need to get the permission of everyone who contributed code to the
GPL'd codebase, to convert to the BSD license. Not sure I can comment
on translations. It's far easier to convert from BSD to GPL,
specifically because the BSD is so permissive. One theoretically
supposes somebody might have
On Mon, Jun 25, 2012 at 2:48 PM, Gregory Maxwell wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 25, 2012 at 2:37 PM, Chris Murphy wrote:
>> I'm reading they're going to use a modified Intel efilinux, not writing a
>> new boot loader. And that they will not require either signed kernel or
>> kernel modules.
>
> Thats my
Proceed to the next paragraph then. ;-)
Seth
On Wed, Jun 20, 2012 at 1:21 PM, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 20, 2012 at 01:19:22PM -0400, Seth Johnson wrote:
>> On Wed, Jun 20, 2012 at 11:04 AM, nomnex wrote:
>> > Things have changed. That's a good news (fo
On Wed, Jun 20, 2012 at 11:04 AM, nomnex wrote:
> Things have changed. That's a good news (for once). Thanks for the
> update.
Bravo, so apparently there is a leader on this, a free software UEFI
on its own trustworthy hardware, that hopefully will tell the truth to
the user about security for t
Minor clarifying insert:
On Tue, Jun 19, 2012 at 8:26 PM, Seth Johnson wrote:
> The positive/negative right formulation is a post-New Deal notion,
> rooted in the question of whether it has been textually granted --
> very different from the notion that we hold rights prior to
> gov
The positive/negative right formulation is a post-New Deal notion,
rooted in the question of whether it has been textually granted --
very different from the notion that we hold rights prior to
government. It may be that we can describe all rights regardless of
whether they are the result of legis
Moral rights are from the Civil Code/French tradition. We don't do
moral rights, although certain interests keep trying. Moral rights in
the copyright context (I am unaware that they exist outside copyright)
are a right of attribution and a right of integrity. We don't have
these in the US tradi
On Mon, Jun 18, 2012 at 1:18 PM, Adam Williamson wrote:
> On Mon, 2012-06-18 at 09:35 -0700, Adam Williamson wrote:
> I hesitate to put words in people's mouths, and correct me if I'm wrong,
> but it reads to me as if Jay and others are arguing from an incorrect
> premise. That premise is to assum
On Mon, Jun 18, 2012 at 10:48 AM, Kevin Fenzi wrote:
> On Mon, 18 Jun 2012 15:35:40 +0200
>
> We really can't know whats going to happen down the road, we can only
> act on it as we know it.
LOL -- by all the signs we have available to know it.
Seth
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedorapro
On Mon, Jun 18, 2012 at 10:21 AM, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 18, 2012 at 10:14:04AM -0400, Seth Johnson wrote:
>> On Mon, Jun 18, 2012 at 10:10 AM, Matthew Garrett
>> wrote:
>> > So you want Fedora to boot on all hardware sold?
>>
>> I want Re
On Mon, Jun 18, 2012 at 10:10 AM, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 18, 2012 at 10:04:38AM -0400, Seth Johnson wrote:
>> On Mon, Jun 18, 2012 at 9:56 AM, Matthew Garrett wrote:
>> > Ok so what you mean is "I want a UEFI implementation that doesn't
>> >
On Mon, Jun 18, 2012 at 9:56 AM, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 18, 2012 at 09:43:27AM -0400, Seth Johnson wrote:
>> On Mon, Jun 18, 2012 at 9:37 AM, Matthew Garrett wrote:
>> > Like I said before, the existing UEFI implementations on the existing
>> > hardware w
On Mon, Jun 18, 2012 at 9:37 AM, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 18, 2012 at 09:26:23AM -0400, Seth Johnson wrote:
>> On Mon, Jun 18, 2012 at 8:59 AM, Matthew Garrett wrote:
>> > You're still not making it clear what you want. Hardware without secure
>> > boo
On Mon, Jun 18, 2012 at 9:23 AM, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 18, 2012 at 09:20:05AM -0400, Seth Johnson wrote:>
>> It's apparently difficult to recognize Jay's argument, immediately
>> above. Jay did not say you currently cannot get an ARM key. I did
>
On Mon, Jun 18, 2012 at 8:59 AM, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 18, 2012 at 08:45:07AM -0400, Seth Johnson wrote:
>> On Mon, Jun 18, 2012 at 7:43 AM, Matthew Garrett wrote:
>> > The features you wanted in a free software UEFI are present in existing
>> > UEFI
On Mon, Jun 18, 2012 at 8:54 AM, Peter Jones wrote:
> On 06/18/2012 01:17 AM, Seth Johnson wrote:
>>
>> On Mon, Jun 18, 2012 at 1:15 AM, Matthew Garrett
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> On Mon, Jun 18, 2012 at 01:09:52AM -0400, Jay Sulzberger wrote:
>>>>
&
On Mon, Jun 18, 2012 at 7:43 AM, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 18, 2012 at 01:47:34AM -0400, Seth Johnson wrote:
>> >On Mon, Jun 18, 2012 at 1:16 AM, Seth Johnson
>> >wrote:
>> > I'm sorry, I really don't understand what you're suggesting her
>On Mon, Jun 18, 2012 at 1:16 AM, Seth Johnson wrote:
>> On Mon, Jun 18, 2012 at 1:14 AM, Matthew Garrett wrote:
>>> On Mon, Jun 18, 2012 at 01:00:33AM -0400, Seth Johnson wrote:
>>>> On Mon, Jun 18, 2012 at 12:58 AM, Matthew Garrett
>>>> wrote:
>&
On Mon, Jun 18, 2012 at 1:15 AM, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 18, 2012 at 01:09:52AM -0400, Jay Sulzberger wrote:
>> The game is now just about over. What if one day, Microsoft
>> makes it even harder to install Fedora without a Microsoft
>> controlled key? What if, as has already happen
On Mon, Jun 18, 2012 at 1:14 AM, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 18, 2012 at 01:00:33AM -0400, Seth Johnson wrote:
>> On Mon, Jun 18, 2012 at 12:58 AM, Matthew Garrett
>> wrote:
>> > On Mon, Jun 18, 2012 at 12:54:56AM -0400, Seth Johnson wrote:
>> >
>&g
On Mon, Jun 18, 2012 at 12:58 AM, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 18, 2012 at 12:54:56AM -0400, Seth Johnson wrote:
>
>> But the best thing is that a free software UEFI would let anybody put
>> their own key as hardware root, and this would stymie the
>> rationaliz
On Mon, Jun 18, 2012 at 12:41 AM, Jay Sulzberger wrote:
> On Mon, 18 Jun 2012, Gerald Henriksen wrote:
>>
>> Not to mention that you are effectively telling anyone not currently
>> using "Red Hat Hardware" that they can't run Linux, thus eliminating
>> the ability to gain new Linux users.
>
> You
On Sun, Jun 17, 2012 at 8:09 PM, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> On Sun, Jun 17, 2012 at 07:54:17PM -0400, Seth Johnson wrote:
>> On Sat, Jun 16, 2012 at 7:26 PM, Reindl Harald
>> wrote:
>> >
>> >
>> > Am 17.06.2012 01:14, schrieb Chris Murphy:
>> >&
on
implies that you trust Microsoft and the hardware vendor more
than you trust yourselves in this. If that is your opinion,
well, why run Fedora ever? After all, in the world your propose
to create, Fedora depends for the security of its boot process,
on Microsoft and Microsoft's partner, t
26 matches
Mail list logo
