In fact, I don't think microsoft bans having other keys besides their key in the bios by default.

Windows RT has Restricted Boot on it.

The article confuses Secure Boot and Restricted Boot. The linked FSF page clearly explains the difference.

The only "issue" is how to manage the certs.

Correct, and that's why the FSF is opposing Restricted Boot, not Secure Boot.

Agreed. I tried helping someone that was using VMWare, and the options were more confusing.

The VMWare EULA is rather dodgy and it's very long. There's also a clause where they can set a third-party (like the BSA) on you.

VirtualBox is free software, no EULAs, works fine.

Google is far more FOSS friendly than MS is now and ever has been.

Google has loads of proprietary software:

• Gmail
• Google Docs
• Chrome
• Google Earth
• Google Maps
• YouTube
• Google+
• ...

Sorry, but I don't necessarily consider the enemy of my enemy to be my friend.

e.g., Android, are becoming fragmented in ways that are gradually turning into a problem for developers and ultimately for end users.

I don't get this argument. How does having more Android OS create a problem for developers and end users?

BSD based Chrome over the GPL based Mozilla

Chromium is BSD-licensed. Chrome is available under a proprietary EULA. So much for freedom...

Partially BSD based OS X on the desktop over the clusterfuck of GPL Linux desktops

You say "on the desktop", but really Darwin is only a bare-bones OS with nothing GUI/desktop related on it.

* BSD based(outside the kernel) Android dominating the cellphone market over the effectively dead GPL based Linux cellphone efforts

Android has a lot of software licensed under the Apache 2.0 license. They also have a lot of proprietary software on it, especially drivers and firmware.

Mod parent up, very true.

The era of mobile phones presents a new set of hardware, most running proprietary firmware and controlled by proprietary drivers. A GNU hacker describes difficulties in producing free replacements for these:

one device - the HTC Universal - took four of us three years of part-time work to finally understand all of the hardware. the best i ever managed on one device was 8 weeks (!) - the Compaq ipaq hw6915 - and i had to stop because the last 3 of those 8 weeks were spent _not_ managing to get the device to come out of suspend.

...

by the time you have source code, it's too late: the device is out the door. it's obsolete already, anyway.

I'm not saying there's anything wrong with some optimism, but people who care about software freedom shouldn't overlook these major blocking issues.

does it support my freedom to use proprietary drivers with my video card

You are free to do whatever you want with it, including changing the repositories to Ubuntu.com and installing proprietary drivers.

Not sure if it's worth replying, because I doubt I'll convince you. But I shall try.

The GPL gives you Freedom 0, to run the software as you wish. In fact, the GPL states in section 9:

You are not required to accept this License in order to receive or run a copy of the Program. [...]

Freedom 1: freedom to read understand the source code. Again, there are no restrictions on this, AFAIK.

Freedom 2: freedom to modify the software. No restrictions on this, AFAIK (as long as you don't distribute).

Freedom 3: freedom to distribute and create derivative works. There are some restrictions on how you do this. For example, you must clearly state the license and derivative works must be licensed under the GPL.

If you like permissive licensing, I won't blame you. There are a lot of free software licenses that are free software licenses as well. But a lot of them have restrictions as well, e.g. acknowledgement in sources. Only software in the public domain has no restrictions, and provides "true" freedom according to your definition.

Going back to the subject, you might be interested to know that NetBSD cofounder and OpenBSD project leader Theo de Raadt was awarded the Advancement For Free Software in 2004. The advancement of free software has nothing to do with the GPL.

According to Apple:

If the user has limited ad tracking, use the advertising identifier only for the following purposes: frequency capping, conversion events, estimating the number of unique users, security and fraud detection, and debugging.

In other words, disabling targeted/personalised ads doesn't disable tracking at all.

When does Sony go to jail, for developing rookits? I bet that affected people on a much larger scale. What about the false advertising regarding the OtherOS feature, which was removed via an updater/backdoor?

Sony screws its customers with DRM and anti-features and attacks software developers. I find it hard to feel sorry for them.

My main fear with this type of law is that it could be extended to protect businesses.

Just imagine how many people Microsoft would be able to sue, for causing offence?

Of course, the other concern is the exact interpretation of "causing offense" is not clear. This is bad for Free Speech, as other posters have mentioned.

I had a company spokeperson at my university lecturing about the benefits of Bluetooth tracking. They stated it was used for improving traffic, but at what cost?

Many countries also have electronic tolling booths that require RFID devices in cars (it's called eToll/GoVia in Australia). So it's not only license plate readers that people have to watch out for.