[luv-main] Microsoft requires Windows 8 logo systems to not boot unsigned OS's
[Apologies to those who've got multiple copies of this] This looks like something to keep an eye on.. Matthew Garrett (the guy who makes peoples laptops work with Linux and has to deal with EFI & Linux - makes you wonder what awful thing he did in a past life) writes about a worrying requirement for Windows 8 logo certification for hardware vendors.. http://mjg59.dreamwidth.org/5552.html # Microsoft requires that machines conforming to the # Windows 8 logo program and running a client version # of Windows 8 ship with secure boot enabled. The two # alternatives here are for Windows to be signed with # a Microsoft key and for the public part of that key # to be included with all systems, or alternatively for # each OEM to include their own key and sign the # pre-installed versions of Windows. The second approach # would make it impossible to run boxed copies of Windows # on Windows logo hardware, and also impossible to install # new versions of Windows unless your OEM provided a new # signed copy. The former seems more likely. # # A system that ships with only OEM and Microsoft keys will # not boot a generic copy of Linux. -- Chris Samuel : http://www.csamuel.org/ : Melbourne, VIC
Chris Samuel <chris@csamuel.org> wrote:
This looks like something to keep an eye on.. Matthew Garrett (the guy who makes peoples laptops work with Linux and has to deal with EFI & Linux - makes you wonder what awful thing he did in a past life) writes about a worrying requirement for Windows 8 logo certification for hardware vendors..
Matthew Garrett is also a superb speaker at conferences, including LCA. As he also notes in that post, UEFI provides for an option to disable "secure" boot, but vendors who only implement the minimum necessary to achieve Microsoft hardware certification are unlikely to include it. In short, locked-down Windows machines are on the way. I also wonder whether competition law might step in if most vendors were to opt to supply hardware without a BIOS switch to turn off "secure" booting.
# Microsoft requires that machines conforming to the # Windows 8 logo program and running a client version # of Windows 8 ship with secure boot enabled. The two # alternatives here are for Windows to be signed with # a Microsoft key and for the public part of that key # to be included with all systems, or alternatively for # each OEM to include their own key and sign the # pre-installed versions of Windows. The second approach # would make it impossible to run boxed copies of Windows # on Windows logo hardware, and also impossible to install # new versions of Windows unless your OEM provided a new # signed copy. The former seems more likely. # # A system that ships with only OEM and Microsoft keys will # not boot a generic copy of Linux.
Or to translate - "Come on ACCC! Hit me in the stomach!" James
I highly recommend everybody immediately email the ACCC about this. Hopefully we can some action done on this issue. Is anyone up for a class action, dont want to go that far, but if *we* have to, we should. ACCC: *1300 302 502* (Australian callers) + *612 6243 1305* (overseas callers). http://www.accc.gov.au/content/maintain/create/index.phtml?contentTypeItemId... here is a copy of my email. "Hello, I have recently found out that any new computer or laptop that ships with the upcoming Windows 8 Operating System will not be able to run any other Operating System. ( http://video.ch9.ms/build/2011/slides/HW-457T_van_der_Hoeven.pptx slide 11) Microsoft's new UEFI Secure Boot system prevents 'unauthorized software' from running on any new computer sold with Windows 8. Making a system that ships with only Micrsoft Windows not being able to boot a copy of Linux or any other operating system. I wish to use Linux on future computers, and this will not allow me to use Linux at all. Microsoft is engaging in seriously anti-competitive behaviour by forcing the lockout of all competitors. (See: http://www.itwire.com/opinion-and-analysis/open-sauce/49889-will-windows-8-s...) Not only will Microsoft kick out Linux off the computers, they will prevent 'upgrading' of windows versions: creating force obsolescence. My question is whether this legal, does Microsoft have ability to engage in massively anti-competitive behaviour? Microsoft has been slowly becoming massively anti-competitive: Originally, they have forced you to purchase a computer with windows, with underhanded "high prices" to any vendor that chooses to sell computers with linux, making it unfeasable for OEM's to sell Linux Based Systems. Computing used to be about choice, having the ability to choose the Operating System. Now Microsoft want to have complete control. Thanks for your time, Luke Martinez" This can't be legal, I will be researching the legalities of this thoroughly soon. On Wed, Sep 21, 2011 at 7:28 PM, James Harper <james.harper@bendigoit.com.au
wrote:
# Microsoft requires that machines conforming to the # Windows 8 logo program and running a client version # of Windows 8 ship with secure boot enabled. The two # alternatives here are for Windows to be signed with # a Microsoft key and for the public part of that key # to be included with all systems, or alternatively for # each OEM to include their own key and sign the # pre-installed versions of Windows. The second approach # would make it impossible to run boxed copies of Windows # on Windows logo hardware, and also impossible to install # new versions of Windows unless your OEM provided a new # signed copy. The former seems more likely. # # A system that ships with only OEM and Microsoft keys will # not boot a generic copy of Linux.
Or to translate - "Come on ACCC! Hit me in the stomach!"
James _______________________________________________ luv-main mailing list luv-main@lists.luv.asn.au http://lists.luv.asn.au/listinfo/luv-main
Luke Martinez wrote:
Microsoft's new UEFI Secure Boot system prevents 'unauthorized software' from running on any new computer sold with Windows 8. Making a system that ships with only Micrsoft Windows not being able to boot a copy of Linux or any other operating system. [...] Not only will Microsoft kick out Linux off the computers, they will prevent 'upgrading' of windows versions: creating force obsolescence.
The other point I make (e.g. on the e-tax feedback website) is that Microsoft is not an Australian company and won't act in the best interests of Australia or Australians. I'd downplay the Linux angle -- this is about Microsoft attacking consumers, not Microsoft attacking Linux.
My question is whether this legal, does Microsoft have ability to engage in massively anti-competitive behaviour? Microsoft has been slowly becoming massively anti-competitive: Originally, they have forced you to purchase a computer with windows, with underhanded "high prices" to any vendor that chooses to sell computers with linux, making it unfeasable for OEM's to sell Linux Based Systems.
You should cite the BeOS case here: In 2002, Be Inc. sued^[4] Microsoft claiming that Hitachi had been dissuaded from selling PCs loaded with BeOS, and that Compaq had been pressured not to market an Internet appliance in partnership with Be. BeOS also claimed that Microsoft acted to artificially depress Be Inc.'s initial public offering (IPO). The case was eventually settled out of court^[5] for $23.25 million with no admission of liability on Microsoft's part. -- https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/BeOS On July 27, 1994, the U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division filed a Competitive Impact Statement that said, in part: "Beginning in 1988, and continuing until July 15, 1994, Microsoft induced many OEMs to execute anticompetitive "per processor" licenses. Under a per processor license, an OEM pays Microsoft a royalty for each computer it sells containing a particular microprocessor, whether the OEM sells the computer with a Microsoft operating system or a non-Microsoft operating system. In effect, the royalty payment to Microsoft when no Microsoft product is being used acts as a penalty, or tax, on the OEM's use of a competing PC operating system. Since 1988, Microsoft's use of per processor licenses has increased."^[23] -- https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Microsoft Likewise On April 3, 2000, a judgment was handed down in the case of United States v. Microsoft,^[34] calling the company an "abusive monopoly";^[35] it settled with the U.S. Department of Justice in 2004.^[13]
On Wed, 21 Sep 2011 10:02:02 PM Luke Martinez wrote:
I have recently found out that any new computer or laptop that ships with the upcoming Windows 8 Operating System will not be able to run any other Operating System.
This is not strictly true - for instance (as I've mentioned elsewhere) it's only client systems that are required to implement secure boot, and the spec itself doesn't prevent vendors from permitting other OS's to boot, just that it's likely that some/many/most/all won't get around to implementing that ability.. So you need to be a bit more nuanced about it I think. cheers, Chris -- Chris Samuel : http://www.csamuel.org/ : Melbourne, VIC This email may come with a PGP signature as a file. Do not panic. For more info see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OpenPGP
On 21/09/11 7:28 PM, James Harper wrote:
# A system that ships with only OEM and Microsoft keys will # not boot a generic copy of Linux.
Or to translate - "Come on ACCC! Hit me in the stomach!"
The relevant parts of the Competition and Consumer Act 2010 (which supercedes the Trade Practices Act) appears to be section 47 and, depending on circumstances, section 46. The useful links are here: http://www.accc.gov.au/content/index.phtml/itemId/816373 http://www.accc.gov.au/content/index.phtml/itemId/816377 http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/caca2010265/ http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/caca2010265/s46.html http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/caca2010265/s47.html I suspect Microsoft will be able to step around this in Australia if it is made clear at the point of sale that Windows 8 logo systems can only be used with Windows and if the hardware vendors supply equivalent systems which are not restricted in this manner. It still bears close scrutiny, though. For the record, I'm not a lawyer, but I have a relative who works at the ACCC and we've discussed this part of the Act in the past (in relation to DVD regioning). Regards, Ben
On 21/09/11 10:50 PM, Ben McGinnes wrote:
On 21/09/11 7:28 PM, James Harper wrote:
# A system that ships with only OEM and Microsoft keys will # not boot a generic copy of Linux.
Or to translate - "Come on ACCC! Hit me in the stomach!"
The relevant parts of the Competition and Consumer Act 2010 (which supercedes the Trade Practices Act) appears to be section 47 and, depending on circumstances, section 46. The useful links are here:
Addendum, section 45 might also get a look in too: http://www.accc.gov.au/content/index.phtml/itemId/816379 http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/caca2010265/s45.html Regards, Ben
On Wed, 21 Sep 2011 22:50:00 +1000 Ben McGinnes <ben@adversary.org> wrote:
On 21/09/11 7:28 PM, James Harper wrote:
# A system that ships with only OEM and Microsoft keys will # not boot a generic copy of Linux.
Or to translate - "Come on ACCC! Hit me in the stomach!"
The relevant parts of the Competition and Consumer Act 2010 (which supercedes the Trade Practices Act) appears to be section 47 and, depending on circumstances, section 46. The useful links are here:
I think that pretty much what all it says there : " ..A substantial lessening of competition may occur, for instance, when the ability of buyers to shop around for a deal that suits them is significantly diminished by an anti-competitive agreement among suppliers...." from :
I am not a lawyer neither, but apart from an argument about "significantly"... its pretty much black and white to me, what it says above. If a PC does not allow me to use Linux, it does not suit me. I may also want a PC from a "reputable" vendor (ie: large mutinational company that can provide me with worldwide hardware support/warranty, eg: HP, because I am a regular taveller). So if as a result of this they (HP) don't provide me with a PC/laptop in Australia, thats clearly in breach of above to me. There may well be a blessing in disguise in this for Linux, as OS or Windows free PC may well become more visible on the Australian Market! Daniel.
http://www.accc.gov.au/content/index.phtml/itemId/816377
http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/caca2010265/ http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/caca2010265/s46.html http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/caca2010265/s47.html
I suspect Microsoft will be able to step around this in Australia if it is made clear at the point of sale that Windows 8 logo systems can only be used with Windows and if the hardware vendors supply equivalent systems which are not restricted in this manner. It still bears close scrutiny, though.
For the record, I'm not a lawyer, but I have a relative who works at the ACCC and we've discussed this part of the Act in the past (in relation to DVD regioning).
Regards, Ben
-- ---------------------------------------- Daniel Jitnah Melbourne, Australia e: djitnah@greenwareit.com.au w: www.greenwareit.com.au SIP: dj-git@ekiga.net ---------------------------------------- ** For All your Linux, Open Source and IT requirements visit: www.greenwareit.com.au ** -- This message has been scanned for viruses and dangerous content by MailScanner, and is believed to be clean. For All your Open Source and IT requirements see: www.greenwareit.com.au
participants (7)
-
Ben McGinnes -
Chris Samuel -
Daniel Jitnah -
James Harper -
Jason White -
Luke Martinez -
Trent W. Buck