From owner-freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG Wed Jun 6 16:30:46 2012 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 11FCC1065687; Wed, 6 Jun 2012 16:30:46 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from jhs@berklix.com) Received: from tower.berklix.org (tower.berklix.org [83.236.223.114]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8FC318FC15; Wed, 6 Jun 2012 16:30:45 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mart.js.berklix.net (p5DCBF89A.dip.t-dialin.net [93.203.248.154]) (authenticated bits=0) by tower.berklix.org (8.14.2/8.14.2) with ESMTP id q56GUf3r034968; Wed, 6 Jun 2012 16:30:43 GMT (envelope-from jhs@berklix.com) Received: from fire.js.berklix.net (fire.js.berklix.net [192.168.91.41]) by mart.js.berklix.net (8.14.3/8.14.3) with ESMTP id q56GUYMN006912; Wed, 6 Jun 2012 18:30:34 +0200 (CEST) (envelope-from jhs@berklix.com) Received: from fire.js.berklix.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by fire.js.berklix.net (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id q56GUJj7093472; Wed, 6 Jun 2012 18:30:24 +0200 (CEST) (envelope-from jhs@fire.js.berklix.net) Message-Id: <201206061630.q56GUJj7093472@fire.js.berklix.net> To: Daniel Feenberg From: "Julian H. Stacey" Organization: http://berklix.com BSD Unix Linux Consultancy, Munich Germany User-agent: EXMH on FreeBSD http://berklix.com/free/ X-URL: http://www.berklix.com In-reply-to: Your message "Wed, 06 Jun 2012 07:19:58 EDT." Date: Wed, 06 Jun 2012 18:30:19 +0200 Sender: jhs@berklix.com Cc: Jerry , Matthew Seaman , FreeBSD Subject: Re: Is this something we (as consumers of FreeBSD) need to be aware of? X-BeenThere: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: User questions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 06 Jun 2012 16:30:46 -0000 > I do wonder about that. What incentive does the possesor of a signing key > have to keep it secret? Contract penalty clause maybe ? Lawyers ? Otherwise one of us would purchase a key for $99, & then publish the key so we could all forever more compile & boot our own kernels. But that would presumably break the trap Microsoft & Verisign seek to impose. It seems dangerous. I suspect we (the free source community) will need to campaign, to engage for eg more EU fines against monoplists to force them to back off. I say EU, 'cos they have done it before, so our best bet so far, but it doesnt matter much which governments impose swingeing anti monoploy fines, as long as enough do, to deter MS & verisign etc. Cheers, Julian -- Julian Stacey, BSD Unix Linux C Sys Eng Consultants Munich http://berklix.com Reply below not above, cumulative like a play script, & indent with "> ". Format: Plain text. Not HTML, multipart/alternative, base64, quoted-printable. Mail from @yahoo dumped @berklix. http://berklix.org/yahoo/