Conversation

Linux kernel is GPLv2, not GPLv3. GPLv3 has specific clauses restricting secure boot implementations. By taking the code, signing it and distributing it Microsoft would be constrained by the GPLv3 license. This is GPLv3 working by design. It's designed to forbid doing this.
2
1
As long as the shim is GPLv2 or more permissively licensed, this isn't an issue with those either. This is a deliberate restriction in GPLv3 working as intended. I think Microsoft legitimately cannot sign and distribute GPLv3 code as part of this. The reasoning seems correct.
1
1
A typical secure boot implementation doesn't work this way. There's usually simply a hard-wired key for the vendor and sometimes support for using a custom key such as with Pixel phones. You don't have to get Google to sign anything to use full secure boot with any OS on a Pixel.
1
Show replies