Summary: The FSF gives an award for work on embracing 'secure boot', whereas the better option -- in my own personal opinion -- is to altogether boycott UEFI, for a variety of separate reasons

IT IS NOT often that I get to say this, but I disagree with the FSF's decision to grant Matthew Garrett an award for work on UEFI. Not only has he acted as a Microsoft apologist (like Miguel de Icaza, who had also received an FSF award) but he also smeared Linux developers whom he did not agree with. Not only has he made Microsoft's case (and Intel's patents) stronger but he also made regulatory actions against UEFI 'secure boot' more complicated.

A world with UEFI 'secure boot' is a world less secure. We need to shun, boycott and altogether avoid UEFI, not find ways to embrace it. People who help popularise or lead us to acceptance of 'secure boot' are doing a disservice -- not a service -- to the principle of people controlling their own computing. That last point is what distinguishes my personal position from the FSF's (collectively). ⬆

Related/contextual items from the news:

1. Matthew Garrett, GNOME Foundation's Outreach Program for Women are Free Software Award winners





2. Matthew Garett, Outreach Program for Women awarded Free Software Awards 2014