> Devices should be allowed to display a different logo at boot time depending on whether the software is manufacturer-approved or not.

Not sure how to phase this legally, but please also add a provision against manufacturers making the "custom firmware" logo hideously ugly on purpose to discourage rooting - like e.g.Microsoft did for Surface tablets.

> 3. Users should have the ability to opt themselves into cryptographic protection, either on the original or modified firmware, for anti-theft reasons.

Full agreement here. I very much would like to keep the bootloader locked - just to my own keys, not the OEMs.

▲

harvey9 a day ago | parent [-]

Someone with the motivation to install custom firmware would consider the bootsplash aesthetic a deal breaker?

	▲	AshamedCaptain a day ago \| parent \| next [-]
		Yes -- bootsplash showing "DANGER! YOUR SECURITY AT RISK! HACKERS CAN NOW STEAL YOUR GIRLFRIEND AND SHUFFLE YOUR PAIRS OF SOCKS!" in big bold red letters only because you enabled root to remove manufacturer malware (which if anything likely _increases_ your security) is a deal breaker, because it will frighten most users from doing it .
	▲	xg15 a day ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		If you want to promote alternative bootloaders or OSes for wider, nontechnical audiences (like LineageOS etc), then absolutely. I think it's a difference in mindset whether you view custom firmware as a grudging exception for techies (with the understanding that "normal" people should have a device under full control of their respective vendor), or whether you want an open OS ecosystem for everyone.