Because there's no reason to believe it would be done.
You buy a computer with Windows installed and the UEFI won't let it boot any other OS.
Why won't that happen?
Because there's no reason to, and because if MS were involved it would be a clear anti-trust issue, and for the same reason they haven't locked down BIOS features for all these years, they could have done this already but they didn't.
What makes you think Microsoft won't offer better terms to companies who refuse to let other operating systems run on their hardware?
Why do you trust these people?
Better terms to companies for what? And what companies? You think Microsoft is going to pay all manufacturers to lock out competitors and that this is going to be seen as legal in anti-trust law? Nice conspiracy theory, bit too light on any kind of basis though.
And when Microsoft refuses to 'Windows certify' motherboards that don't allow you to turn it off...?
Your conspiracy theory doesn't match with the certification guidelines that state that it has to support UEFI Secureboot, not make it a mandatory feature that cannot be turned off.
I thought the point to the UEFI secure boot thing was that the UEFI wouldn't boot without the MBR and remainder of the boot blocks being properly digitally signed.
More to the point is why are you using an MBR on a UEFI system?
This is nice but unless its seamless and user friendly to the point of invisibility Microsoft gets what it wants, a computing environment that is that much more unfriendly to anything not windows.
How is it unfriendly to anything not Windows? They are just implementing the Secure Boot feature of UEFI, if you want to boot an OS that doesn't support it then turn Secure Boot off in the BIOS.
Android is a pretty good example, if we're willing to put the ASL in the place of the BSD here. You can get your hands on a bunch of ASL-licensed binaries on your handset, but nobody is obligated to give you the source.
The ASL license has no relevance then, it is a binary so the source code license is irrelevant precisely because the item in question isn't source code. It isn't free software or open source because it's binaries built from ASL-licensed code where that code is not released. This is permitted in permissive open source licenses which of course means it can be open or closed source and that choice is left purely to the person who wrote the code, which makes sense.
One of the events that prompted the founding of the FSF was when Stallman wanted to fix a problem with a printer driver, but was forbidden from getting the source. That's not all that different from wanting to fix a problem with your Android handset, but being forbidden from getting the source.
However the term Free Software, and the Free Software Foundation do not limit themselves to restrictive (as opposed to permissive) free software licenses, they don't try and force you to release your changes if you don't want to, you have the choice.
So if I have a BSD-licensed binary, but not the source or any way to get the source, it's not opensource, or free software?
That's pretty well established in the definitions of both open source and free software, but why would you be licensing only a binary under BSD? What would be the point of that?
If the BSD is only sometimes a free software or opensource license, it's not really free or open at all.
Of course it is, if the source code is released under a BSD or ASL then it is just as free - well actually it's even more free (see: permissive) - as GPL-licensed code. The core difference is that BSD- and ASL- licensed code can be used to build non-free products as well, the GPL cannot.
You're only reading half the story. They are not allowed to bring anything back in after the park is "cleared".
http://i.imgur.com/TMxmg.jpg
Better than your sensationalist trolling rubbish about not being able to bring anything back in. It couldn't be clearer, it's written right there: If you decide to return you will not be permitted to bring tents, sleeping bags, tarps and similar materials with you.
According to RMS himself, founder of the FSF, the Apache and BSD licenses are not free software licenses because they specifically violate the second value; the freedom to modify, which requires source code.
That's only in the case where the program is not open source: The program must include source code, and must allow distribution in source code as well as compiled form. http://www.opensource.org/osd.html
So if the program is open source, then by definition you have the source code and if that code is licensed under a BSD license then it most certainly complies with RMS's Free Software freedoms.
It doesn't become open source until you actually release that source code, if MS said the Windows source was under BSD license but never released the code would you consider it to be open source? Up until nowHoneycomb was closed source for the obvious reason that the source code was not released, hence not open.
Except from the Open Source definition: The program must include source code, and must allow distribution in source code as well as compiled form. http://www.opensource.org/osd.html
Just to be clear the only one of the GP's assertions I agree with is that Honeycomb wasn't open source (until now) and I wouldn't even say Google is 'evil' for not releasing it earlier, in fact I entirely understand and support them doing so, their reasoning made perfect sense. But it's obvious that Honeycomb was closed-source up until now.
Well, my point to bonch, was just saying "Android is open source" carries no specific instructions with it.
Fair enough, I would suggest that fundamental component is that the source code is actually released, you can hardly call a project 'open source' if you don't make the source available.
I suppose the other point I should have mentioned is that the statement 'Android is open source' does sort of work in certain circumstances simply because all of the pieces just so happen to align, for example in the context of smartphones it works because the source-code for the kernel (required by license) and userland (optional by license) components for all of the smartphone versions (since Honeycomb is tablet-only) has been released.
Google aren't obligated to release the source for anything but the kernel (because that is under the GPL), however a statement like 'Android is open source' was questionable (at least was up until now) since the Honeycomb version of Android was not open source because the source code for that version was not released.
In all the threads about this topic there were plenty of arguments over this issue, there was certainly no 'slashdot consensus' regarding the source code release.
They had no other choice legally, or else this wouldn't have happened.
Of course they did, the only thing they have to release is the kernel code since nothing in the ASL requires them to release source code and that's why Honeycomb didn't have to be released.
Hopefully that means we will see ICS ported to other devices in the near future, it should be interesting to see how it performs on older devices. Good to see that ICS is an open source version of Android after the closed-source Honeycomb created that possibility (however unlikely) of other Android versions following suit.
Personally, I'd be more worried as to whether MS is going to push UEFI secure boot onto every OEM, making it hard to buy any hardware that let you choose which OS to run.
Why? Just because SecureBoot is available doesn't mean it has to be turned on.
You are simply ignoring the simple fact that Americans are still buying Apple products, nevertheless your arguments.
I don't think he's ignoring that, Americans are just buying things made by the chinese.
If the Americans were so concerned with their jobs, they would agree to pay a bit more for Made In USA products.
Except that most things aren't 'Made in USA' anymore not because of consumer price choice but because making them offshore provides the company with better profit margins, just look at the enormous profit margins on Apple gear, they own ~7% of the PC market yet make ~35% of the profit, just google it. They also make the lion's share of the profit in the smartphone market despite having a comparatively small marketshare.
Well, I'm not ok with it. And I have contributed patches to Linux kernel, and those are my copyrights.
Specifically which copyrights are you holding that they are infringing? I'm guessing your claim is false and you don't actually know what you're talking about. The writers of the code in question maintain that the code is not even copyrightable.
If this is a violation, then every single piece of software linked against the kernel headers is also a GPL violation.
No it isn't, a proprietary, BSD, ASL, etc.. -licensed application linking to a GPL-violating (if that were the case here) system library would not be a GPL violation in itself as there is explicit provision in the GPL that states that you can link to system libraries (which includes the kernel) with *any* code proprietary or not without being affected by the GPL in any way, they do not have any obligation to release source code.
So we should just ignore Google's blatant violation of GPL?
How can it be a blatant violation if even the people who wrote the headers say it's not copyrightable? What's your basis for concluding that they are violating the GPL?
Just wait and see. I'm betting that.NET will be so cumbersome and buggy in regards to integration in Windows 8 that it will be the next one in the chopping block
Why would it be cumbersome and buggy in Windows 8? What do you think would be used as the alternative to.Net?
Slashdot Mirror
There's always one in every secureboot story. So tell me, how are they trying to screw you?
Why is that unlkely?
Because there's no reason to believe it would be done.
You buy a computer with Windows installed and the UEFI won't let it boot any other OS.
Why won't that happen?
Because there's no reason to, and because if MS were involved it would be a clear anti-trust issue, and for the same reason they haven't locked down BIOS features for all these years, they could have done this already but they didn't.
What makes you think Microsoft won't offer better terms to companies who refuse to let other operating systems run on their hardware?
Why do you trust these people?
Better terms to companies for what? And what companies? You think Microsoft is going to pay all manufacturers to lock out competitors and that this is going to be seen as legal in anti-trust law? Nice conspiracy theory, bit too light on any kind of basis though.
And when Microsoft refuses to 'Windows certify' motherboards that don't allow you to turn it off...?
Your conspiracy theory doesn't match with the certification guidelines that state that it has to support UEFI Secureboot, not make it a mandatory feature that cannot be turned off.
I thought the point to the UEFI secure boot thing was that the UEFI wouldn't boot without the MBR and remainder of the boot blocks being properly digitally signed.
More to the point is why are you using an MBR on a UEFI system?
This is nice but unless its seamless and user friendly to the point of invisibility Microsoft gets what it wants, a computing environment that is that much more unfriendly to anything not windows.
How is it unfriendly to anything not Windows? They are just implementing the Secure Boot feature of UEFI, if you want to boot an OS that doesn't support it then turn Secure Boot off in the BIOS.
Android is a pretty good example, if we're willing to put the ASL in the place of the BSD here. You can get your hands on a bunch of ASL-licensed binaries on your handset, but nobody is obligated to give you the source.
The ASL license has no relevance then, it is a binary so the source code license is irrelevant precisely because the item in question isn't source code. It isn't free software or open source because it's binaries built from ASL-licensed code where that code is not released. This is permitted in permissive open source licenses which of course means it can be open or closed source and that choice is left purely to the person who wrote the code, which makes sense.
One of the events that prompted the founding of the FSF was when Stallman wanted to fix a problem with a printer driver, but was forbidden from getting the source. That's not all that different from wanting to fix a problem with your Android handset, but being forbidden from getting the source.
However the term Free Software, and the Free Software Foundation do not limit themselves to restrictive (as opposed to permissive) free software licenses, they don't try and force you to release your changes if you don't want to, you have the choice.
So if I have a BSD-licensed binary, but not the source or any way to get the source, it's not opensource, or free software?
That's pretty well established in the definitions of both open source and free software, but why would you be licensing only a binary under BSD? What would be the point of that?
If the BSD is only sometimes a free software or opensource license, it's not really free or open at all.
Of course it is, if the source code is released under a BSD or ASL then it is just as free - well actually it's even more free (see: permissive) - as GPL-licensed code. The core difference is that BSD- and ASL- licensed code can be used to build non-free products as well, the GPL cannot.
You're only reading half the story. They are not allowed to bring anything back in after the park is "cleared". http://i.imgur.com/TMxmg.jpg
Better than your sensationalist trolling rubbish about not being able to bring anything back in. It couldn't be clearer, it's written right there:
If you decide to return you will not be permitted to bring tents, sleeping bags, tarps and similar materials with you.
According to RMS himself, founder of the FSF, the Apache and BSD licenses are not free software licenses because they specifically violate the second value; the freedom to modify, which requires source code.
That's only in the case where the program is not open source:
The program must include source code, and must allow distribution in source code as well as compiled form.
http://www.opensource.org/osd.html
So if the program is open source, then by definition you have the source code and if that code is licensed under a BSD license then it most certainly complies with RMS's Free Software freedoms.
Tell me, since when does open source (which doesn't mean what you falsely imply it does) explicitly say they can't do what is exactly within the apache license, dumbass?
It doesn't become open source until you actually release that source code, if MS said the Windows source was under BSD license but never released the code would you consider it to be open source?
Up until now Honeycomb was closed source for the obvious reason that the source code was not released, hence not open.
Except from the Open Source definition:
The program must include source code, and must allow distribution in source code as well as compiled form.
http://www.opensource.org/osd.html
Just to be clear the only one of the GP's assertions I agree with is that Honeycomb wasn't open source (until now) and I wouldn't even say Google is 'evil' for not releasing it earlier, in fact I entirely understand and support them doing so, their reasoning made perfect sense. But it's obvious that Honeycomb was closed-source up until now.
Well, my point to bonch, was just saying "Android is open source" carries no specific instructions with it.
Fair enough, I would suggest that fundamental component is that the source code is actually released, you can hardly call a project 'open source' if you don't make the source available.
I suppose the other point I should have mentioned is that the statement 'Android is open source' does sort of work in certain circumstances simply because all of the pieces just so happen to align, for example in the context of smartphones it works because the source-code for the kernel (required by license) and userland (optional by license) components for all of the smartphone versions (since Honeycomb is tablet-only) has been released.
Google aren't obligated to release the source for anything but the kernel (because that is under the GPL), however a statement like 'Android is open source' was questionable (at least was up until now) since the Honeycomb version of Android was not open source because the source code for that version was not released.
In all the threads about this topic there were plenty of arguments over this issue, there was certainly no 'slashdot consensus' regarding the source code release.
Of course, by /. standards everyone is supposed to release their source code
How do you come to that conclusion?
They had no other choice legally, or else this wouldn't have happened.
Of course they did, the only thing they have to release is the kernel code since nothing in the ASL requires them to release source code and that's why Honeycomb didn't have to be released.
Hopefully that means we will see ICS ported to other devices in the near future, it should be interesting to see how it performs on older devices.
Good to see that ICS is an open source version of Android after the closed-source Honeycomb created that possibility (however unlikely) of other Android versions following suit.
He said further proves.
How do you 'further prove' something which has yet to be proven?
Personally, I'd be more worried as to whether MS is going to push UEFI secure boot onto every OEM, making it hard to buy any hardware that let you choose which OS to run.
Why? Just because SecureBoot is available doesn't mean it has to be turned on.
You are simply ignoring the simple fact that Americans are still buying Apple products, nevertheless your arguments.
I don't think he's ignoring that, Americans are just buying things made by the chinese.
If the Americans were so concerned with their jobs, they would agree to pay a bit more for Made In USA products.
Except that most things aren't 'Made in USA' anymore not because of consumer price choice but because making them offshore provides the company with better profit margins, just look at the enormous profit margins on Apple gear, they own ~7% of the PC market yet make ~35% of the profit, just google it. They also make the lion's share of the profit in the smartphone market despite having a comparatively small marketshare.
Well, I'm not ok with it. And I have contributed patches to Linux kernel, and those are my copyrights.
Specifically which copyrights are you holding that they are infringing? I'm guessing your claim is false and you don't actually know what you're talking about. The writers of the code in question maintain that the code is not even copyrightable.
If the copyright owners have said it's ok then does that constitute a verbal license agreement between the copyright holders and Google?
Perhaps, but in this case there aren't any copyright owners because the people who wrote the code have said that the code isn't even copyrightable.
If this is a violation, then every single piece of software linked against the kernel headers is also a GPL violation.
No it isn't, a proprietary, BSD, ASL, etc.. -licensed application linking to a GPL-violating (if that were the case here) system library would not be a GPL violation in itself as there is explicit provision in the GPL that states that you can link to system libraries (which includes the kernel) with *any* code proprietary or not without being affected by the GPL in any way, they do not have any obligation to release source code.
So we should just ignore Google's blatant violation of GPL?
How can it be a blatant violation if even the people who wrote the headers say it's not copyrightable? What's your basis for concluding that they are violating the GPL?
Just wait and see. I'm betting that .NET will be so cumbersome and buggy in regards to integration in Windows 8 that it will be the next one in the chopping block
Why would it be cumbersome and buggy in Windows 8? What do you think would be used as the alternative to .Net?
That might be a step in the wrong direction, as Adobe announced that they're ending development for the mobile versions of Flash today.
And how many mobile versions of silverlight were there?
I think it'd be smarter for Netflix to latch onto HTML5.
Which would work if there were a cross-platform DRM solution.