On Fri, 20 Jul 2012 13:14:50 +1000, Ben Sturmfels <[email protected]> wrote:
There was some concern about the strong phrase "We commit that we will
neither purchase nor recommend computers that strip users of this
critical freedom", since it is foreseeable that someone could one day
buy one of these devices either unknowingly or because there was no
other alternative.
The 'critical freedom' here is the freedom to run an operating system of the
user's choice. Manufacturers can enable this freedom merely by providing a way
to disable restricted ('secure') boot through a UEFI setting, though obviously
it would be preferable if they would allow the user to add non-Microsoft keys.
It isn't much to ask. The bigger challenge of course will be with ARM based
devices, though fortunately Microsoft has less control in that area, and vocal
action now will make our position clear.
I don't see how the FSF statement could be made much weaker short of removing
any consequence to the petition. I can understand that this makes it
complicated to sign if you were a purchasing officer for a large corporate, but
for individuals running a handfall of machines and making recommendations, and
for organizations such as Free Software Melbourne, it is simply a statement
that we won't buy/recommend a machine that can only run Windows. How can we
advocate for free software if we do not advocate for machines that can run this
software?
Glenn
--
sks-keyservers.net 0xb1e82ec9228ac090
_______________________________________________
Free-software-melb mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.softwarefreedom.com.au/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/free-software-melb
