I think that’s because of GPL-2, which had allowance (unintentional) for Tivoization, which is what Secure Boot is a form of from what I read. I might be wrong on that, though.
IIRC the first draft had the keys all controlled by Microsoft, with no option to use your own, and no option to disable it. Don’t think the GPL had anything to do with it directly, though it was people wanting to use Linux (and other systems than the one pre-installed) on their own hardware that complained.
This isn’t quite the same thing. I’d say locked bootloaders are the Android analog, and they are already less likely to be user unlockable than the typical PC (and the situation is getting worse).
It’s called secure boot and it’s been around for over 10 years now.
And the first iteration was much more locked down, only got changed after public complaints.
I think that’s because of GPL-2, which had allowance (unintentional) for Tivoization, which is what Secure Boot is a form of from what I read. I might be wrong on that, though.
GPL-3 fixed the Tivoization, though.
IIRC the first draft had the keys all controlled by Microsoft, with no option to use your own, and no option to disable it. Don’t think the GPL had anything to do with it directly, though it was people wanting to use Linux (and other systems than the one pre-installed) on their own hardware that complained.
This isn’t quite the same thing. I’d say locked bootloaders are the Android analog, and they are already less likely to be user unlockable than the typical PC (and the situation is getting worse).