No, it is just one hardware supplier playing the OS supplier game.
The game is: - we will sign any shim, as long as we like it - we don't like GPL, so it must not be GPL - ah, you need to sign the legal paper that we created if you want to us to sign shim. You are free to use the service, why, you have something to hide? - it must not be anywhere near GPL, we don't like it too and we leave it vague (to our discretion) - the rules are legal once you sign them - hardware suppliers do what they want, we don't force them in any way to boot only one OS and, the best part of it is: - hackers will sign anything and get away with it
The game is called 'additional security', don't forget.
I think I have asked before 'will Microsoft sign?' and the answer depends on the details. I will probably sign somewhere around 2016 (four years for all the legal proceedings should be enough to make something new up).
Power management, mobile and firmware developer on Linux. Security developer at Aurora. Ex-biologist. mjg59 on Twitter. Content here should not be interpreted as the opinion of my employer. Also on Mastodon.
Re: Breach of MS guidelines?
Date: 2012-11-26 10:23 pm (UTC)The game is:
- we will sign any shim, as long as we like it
- we don't like GPL, so it must not be GPL
- ah, you need to sign the legal paper that we created if you want to us to sign shim. You are free to use the service, why, you have something to hide?
- it must not be anywhere near GPL, we don't like it too and we leave it vague (to our discretion)
- the rules are legal once you sign them
- hardware suppliers do what they want, we don't force them in any way to boot only one OS
and, the best part of it is:
- hackers will sign anything and get away with it
The game is called 'additional security', don't forget.
I think I have asked before 'will Microsoft sign?' and the answer depends on the details. I will probably sign somewhere around 2016 (four years for all the legal proceedings should be enough to make something new up).