On Sat, Jun 2, 2012 at 6:23 PM, drago01 <drago01(a)gmail.com> wrote:
It can be argued both ways. Modifying software requires more
"skills"
and knowlegde anyway so it is more acceptable to accept that group of
people to fiddle with the firmware then everyone including people that
don't even know what a firmware is. Come on lets not discuss the
obvious ..
My personal ability to disable the cryptographic lockdown— or to
choose hardware where isn't in question— it's the ability of people I
redistribute the software to that is relevant.
If it were not then I could simply answer your desire to ship signed
binaries with "Just disable that option on your computer, tada, no
problems". If thats not a viable an option for Fedora as whole, it's
not an option to someone who is executing the rights Fedora is
required to pass on either. I don't personally think there is any
ambiguity in this regard the social contract created via copyleft
licenses, if people do then perhaps it's time to strike a new one.
[No disrespect intended, but I'm not point by pointing the rest
because I think the educated reader could easily enough anticipate my
responses from the past thread, we're becoming circular again]