> That's because like pretty much everyone who is not the FSF, Ubuntu has not actually carefully read the part of GPLv3 that deals with software that requires signing in order to install [...] I can kind of excuse it when it is just random end users or individual software developers who don't understand the license they are using...but one of the leading Linux companies!?
In response to:
"Have you talked to the FSF about their position on this? They're the
sole copyright holder of grub 2, so any position they'd publicly take
would be pretty relevant in terms of potential legal action."
The reply:
"I haven't been privy to all the mails on this, but in the ones I saw,
the responses were distinctly equivocal at best. They certainly didn't
say that we were safe, rather the reverse."
Please give them more credit. Apparently, they have even discussed it with the FSF. From https://lists.ubuntu.com/archives/ubuntu-devel/2012-June/035...:
Edit: failing to quote this sensibly.
In response to: "Have you talked to the FSF about their position on this? They're the sole copyright holder of grub 2, so any position they'd publicly take would be pretty relevant in terms of potential legal action."
The reply: "I haven't been privy to all the mails on this, but in the ones I saw, the responses were distinctly equivocal at best. They certainly didn't say that we were safe, rather the reverse."