On Jun 14, 2007, Rob Landley <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Thursday 14 June 2007 13:46:40 Alexandre Oliva wrote:
>> Well, then, ok: do all that loader and hardware signature-checking
>> dancing, sign the image, store it in the machine, and throw the
>> signing key away. This should be good for the highly-regulated areas
>> you're talking about. And then, since you can no longer modify the
>> program, you don't have to let the user do that any more. Problem
>> solved.
> A) Does that actually satisfy the terms of GPLv3?
I think so:
this requirement does not apply if neither you nor any third party
retains the ability to install modified object code on the User
Product
> If so, can't they just wait until they get sued and destroy the keys
> then?
I don't think this woulnd't satisfy the above.
--
Alexandre Oliva http://www.lsd.ic.unicamp.br/~oliva/
FSF Latin America Board Member http://www.fsfla.org/
Red Hat Compiler Engineer aoliva@{redhat.com, gcc.gnu.org}
Free Software Evangelist oliva@{lsd.ic.unicamp.br, gnu.org}
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
[Index of Archives]
[Kernel Newbies]
[Netfilter]
[Bugtraq]
[Photo]
[Stuff]
[Gimp]
[Yosemite News]
[MIPS Linux]
[ARM Linux]
[Linux Security]
[Linux RAID]
[Video 4 Linux]
[Linux for the blind]
[Linux Resources]
