Signed RPMs v GPL2

Rob Landley rob at landley.net
Sat Sep 16 23:32:24 UTC 2006


On Saturday 16 September 2006 12:42 pm, Rich Felker wrote:
> I couldn't care less what Linus thinks. He has no dedication to free
> software nor to principle,

Are you _trying_ to wind up back in my spam filter?

> No because it's possible to run modified binaries without the keys. As
> soon as they start distributing signed binaries for special hardware
> that cannot run unsigned binaries they can expect to see me in court.

Windows pops up a warning box when you try to load device drivers that aren't 
signed by Microsoft.  It's possible to do it, but it takes some effort to 
install them and they're very definitely second-class citizens.

Where do you draw the line?  Life involves finding the right balance, and is 
not generally hospitable to absolutes.  (The whole "nature abhors a vacuum" 
thing, I suspect.)

> > Crypto can be for you or against you like any lock, depends on who has 
> > the keys and why.  I definitely prefer my bank and distro keeps their 
> > private keys private.
> 
> This argument has nothing to do about your bank or your distro. It's
> about DENYING the freedoms that the GPL REQUIRES you to grant
> recipients of the code via technical means and via refusing to give
> them part of the source code.

No, it's about what copyright law allows.

> Rich
 
Rob
-- 
Never bet against the cheap plastic solution.



More information about the busybox mailing list