Heh, Yep, I'm definitely not a lawyer - I wasn't trying to express this as a fact - I tried to make it clear that this was just my understanding of the current situation.
I think that using a BSD header on the files that include the microcode could be fine - I really don't know. It's a stupidly simple file. I've been talking with Intel about it, but I'm not sure that they really want to GPL their microcode. I'd imagine that getting permission to do that would involve a *BUNCH* of lawyers, and what would the implications of doing that be?
I'm also not sure what the implications of just changing the headers on the files are... Couldn't someone challenge us doing that? It seems tricky... I'm pretty uncomfortable with the whole situation - that's why I was thinking that just making a utility that turns the microcode files into binaries might be the best solution, but I don't know....
Martin
On 06/04/2014 03:04 PM, ron minnich wrote:
On Wed, Jun 4, 2014 at 1:57 PM, Martin Roth <martin.roth@se-eng.com mailto:martin.roth@se-eng.com> wrote:
There are a number of issues here: 3) The way that the microcode is currently being included is (to my understanding) completely against the Intel licensing. We're compiling a .h file with a license that says that it *CANNOT* be made GPL into a file with a GPL header.you're not a lawyer, thank goodness. I'm not either. But can't we solved this problem by putting a bsd header onto that file, rather than going with blobs? Or, better still, talking to intel about the problem, rather than jumping over lots of hurdles to solve a problem that may not exist?
ron