On Friday 04 February 2022 21:23:18 PM (+07:00), Måns wrote:
Well, does GPLv3 not require that a customer should be able to build
the GPLv3 like bash and deploy it to the target? It is not directly
secure-boot but the customer has a boot up sequence that starts with
secure boot and then the rootfs needs to be signed. So it would not be
possible to open up the device to allow a customer to deploy his own
version of bash on the target. But I might have misunderstood GPLv3. I
am not an expert.
ermmm no... my understanding is if a device is bootlocked.. grub or secure-boot, then the vendor only needs to provide a way a client having ownership of the device
can make, rebuild, duplicate, circumvent the secure-boot. ie... make it undoable/bypassable and as long as they allow users to install their own secure boot keys
now im not LAWYER .... However.... if a client can regenerate keys/bootloader/image then i believe your safe.
Den fre 4 feb. 2022 kl 15:19 skrev Embedded Devel <yocto@...>:
On Friday 04 February 2022 15:53:42 PM (+07:00), Mans Zigher wrote:
Hi,Okay, wait, why does enabling secure-boot prevent including GPLv3 packages??
A client of mine wants to have docker on it's product and they are
having secure boot enabled which prevents us from having any GPLv3
licensed code on the target.
Ive never heard this before.
Sent with Vivaldi Mail. Download Vivaldi for free at vivaldi.com