Microsoft Proves Techrights Right by Screwing UEFI ‘Partners

[Orbmiser]

Microsoft Proves Techrights Right by Screwing UEFI ‘Partners’
http://techrights.org/2012/11/21/hardware-keys-for-lf/

just started learning about this and this is a couple of weeks old but new to me.
And started searching for the legality of this or if it was even legal?

Couldn't find anything specific that declared it illegal practice or a violation under fair consumer protection laws? or monopolistic behavior? Is anyone questioning or looking into the legalities of this issue?

just curious as seems Linux community is split on how to deal with this. Your thoughts?
.

[srs5694]

That's being blown way out of proportion. It's true that the LF has been having problems with getting its program signed, but the one post I've seen on the issue from James Bottomly (the person who's developing the LF pre-bootloader) made it sound like a technical glitch, not an anti-Linux conspiracy. I'm inclined to believe it really is a technical problem because both Ubuntu and Matthew Garrett have gotten their shim boot loaders signed. See here for Garrett's shim, which is currently the only one that's useful for booting anything but Ubuntu.

[Orbmiser]

Good to know for other distro's use. And yep always read all posts with only one foot in the pool.
As no hurry to jump in with both feet!

But do wonder if there is any legal standing to go after Microsoft on this issue?
As wondering if it ends up being a Battle Royale or just a lay back and let Microsoft have this one.
.

[Hawkeye_52]

Microsoft Proves Techrights Right by Screwing UEFI ‘Partners’
http://techrights.org/2012/11/21/hardware-keys-for-lf/

just started learning about this and this is a couple of weeks old but new to me.
And started searching for the legality of this or if it was even legal?

Couldn't find anything specific that declared it illegal practice or a violation under fair consumer protection laws? or monopolistic behavior? Is anyone questioning or looking into the legalities of this issue?

just curious as seems Linux community is split on how to deal with this. Your thoughts?
.

The whole thing makes my blood boil .

We can be as 'objective' as the day is long, but the purpose(s) behind what has happened is a combination of poor OS design (who else needs so much outside help to secure their OS from attack?), and 'hard ball' marketing to cripple the competition (however small our market share may be ). In any event, your thread pushed me to action, and I dropped Linux Foundation and email, asking them the status of their efforts. It has now been over two months (October 12, 2012)since Jim Bottomley's commits on the Foundation's efforts -- easily long enough to correct any 'technical problems' in their application to MS. If I get a reply, I will post on this thread...

Hawkeye52