Hi all, Last meeting when we were talking about secure boot someone (I can't remember who) said that fedora would need to publicly release their signing key. I thought that was an incorrect interpretation of the GPLv3 at the time, and now the FSF whitepaper on the topic confirms what I was thinking. They talk about it in the context of the ubuntu plan. "...they are afraid of falling out of compliance with GPLv3, they plan to drop GRUB 2 on Secure Boot systems, in favor of another bootloader with a different license that lacks GPLv3’s protections for user freedom. Their stated concern is that someone might ship an Ubuntu Certified machine with Restricted Boot (where the user cannot disable it). In order to comply with GPLv3, Ubuntu thinks it would then have to divulge its private key so that users could sign and install modified software on the restricted system." "*This fear is unfounded and based on a misunderstanding of GPLv3*. We have not been able to come up with any scenario where Ubuntu would be forced to divulge a private signing key because a third-party computer manufacturer or distributor shipped Ubuntu on a Restricted Boot machine. In such situations, the computer distributor – not Canonical or Ubuntu – would be the one responsible for providing the information necessary for users to run modified versions of the software." The FSF are "the primary interpreter of the license in question, is the copyright holder of GRUB 2, the main piece of GPLv3-covered software at issue." All quotes from FSF white paper available at http://www.fsf.org/news/fsf-publishes-whitepaper-with-recommendations-for-fr... . Bianca