On 10/29/2015 09:48 AM, Marc Jones wrote:
Hello coreboot,
Hi Marc
Please limit comments to specific items in this version. If you have additions for the next version (if needed), the draft document is open for comment.
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1wMdDUAZR2Z9V7hcs3IhIOqw6sYQxb3vPEmbITTCr...
That looks pretty good. I think you've done a great job of clarifying the requirements of ISA vs non-ISA blobs compared to the last version. I've made some comments on it to ask for clarification about the versioning requirements.
While not necessarily specific to this version, are we still considering forbidding "no-reverse engineering" and "no-modification" clauses for blobs?
Alex
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
On 10/30/2015 10:44 AM, Alex G. wrote:
On 10/29/2015 09:48 AM, Marc Jones wrote:
Hello coreboot,
Hi Marc
Please limit comments to specific items in this version. If you have additions for the next version (if needed), the draft document is open for comment.
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1wMdDUAZR2Z9V7hcs3IhIOqw6sYQxb3vPEmbITTCr...
That looks pretty good. I think you've done a great job of clarifying the requirements of ISA vs non-ISA blobs compared to the last version. I've made some comments on it to ask for clarification about the versioning requirements.
While not necessarily specific to this version, are we still considering forbidding "no-reverse engineering" and "no-modification" clauses for blobs?
Alex
No modification will be enforced by the hardware very quickly for critical blobs (it already is on x86); additionally, certain countries like the United States expressly prohibit modification of copyrighted software.
The reverse engineering case is also fairly murky in the United States at least; while prohibiting a "no-reverse engineering" clause is a good start theoretically, I don't know if it will actually gain the project anything in reality due to existing law and case precedent.
- -- Timothy Pearson Raptor Engineering +1 (415) 727-8645 (direct line) +1 (512) 690-0200 (switchboard) http://www.raptorengineeringinc.com
On Fri, Oct 30, 2015 at 9:44 AM Alex G. mr.nuke.me@gmail.com wrote:
On 10/29/2015 09:48 AM, Marc Jones wrote:
Hello coreboot,
Hi Marc
Please limit comments to specific items in this version. If you have additions for the next version (if needed), the draft document is open for comment.
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1wMdDUAZR2Z9V7hcs3IhIOqw6sYQxb3vPEmbITTCr...
That looks pretty good. I think you've done a great job of clarifying the requirements of ISA vs non-ISA blobs compared to the last version. I've made some comments on it to ask for clarification about the versioning requirements.
While not necessarily specific to this version, are we still considering forbidding "no-reverse engineering" and "no-modification" clauses for blobs?
Thanks, I think it is all open for discussion and could go in the next version. It might be a good idea, but that might be too limiting and we would have to remove all blobs and they would be hosted somewhere else, which defeates the utility of the blobs dir. We would like intel to push to blobs/ but I think that would be a huge blocker for them.
Marc
Alex
-
Alex G. -
Marc Jones -
Timothy Pearson