From 22ac76ad23f7c9a0cf21969faf5a4da69d17310c Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: "Bradley M. Kuhn" Date: Fri, 7 Nov 2014 07:43:07 -0500 Subject: [PATCH] Add footnote describing how CCS reviews were done. --- enforcement-case-studies.tex | 8 +++++++- 1 file changed, 7 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) diff --git a/enforcement-case-studies.tex b/enforcement-case-studies.tex index fc29afe..f2cf652 100644 --- a/enforcement-case-studies.tex +++ b/enforcement-case-studies.tex @@ -285,7 +285,13 @@ Specifically, this chapter discusses the purchase, CCS provision, and a step-by-step build and installation analysis of a specific, physical, embedded electronics product. The product in question is \href{https://www.thinkpenguin.com/gnu-linux/free-software-wireless-n-broadband-router-gnu-linux-tpe-nwifirouter}{the - ``TPE-NWIFIROUTER'' wireless router by ThinkPenguin}. + ``TPE-NWIFIROUTER'' wireless router by ThinkPenguin}\footnote{The FSF of + course performed a thorough CCS check as part of the certification process. + The analysis discussed herein was independently performed by Software + Freedom Conservancy without reviewing any findings of the FSF, and thus the + analysis provides a ``true to form'' analysis as it occurs when Conservancy + investigates a potential GPL violation. In this case, obviously, no + violation was uncovered.} \section{Root Filesystem and Kernel Compilation}