On Wednesday, April 02, 2014 08:41:10 AM ron minnich wrote:
This license still looks problematical to me. Couple that with the fact that the Haswell MRC is still not generally available from Intel and I'm a bit concerned.
If I build a coreboot image with FSP, am I allowed to put it on dropbox for others to try out? Not clear at all!
And, "one backup copy"? Do the people who wrote this understand how things in this world work?
This is progress, and Intel gets closer every time, but they're still not there in my view.
How is this progress? It's a much more terrible solution than MRC, much harder to integrate, and the only step it really leaves us with control over is resource allocation. Resource allocation is one of coreboot's strongest points. It seems to me this is just an attempt to use coreboot's resource allocator in a proprietary firmware. That is a clear attempt to circumvent the wishes of the rightsholders to this project.
Nobody asked us how such binaries could best be incorporated. The currently provided solution is so hard to integrate that reverse engineering is a viable alternative.
Google did a reasonable job with mrc.bin. Not ideal, but vastly superior to FSP. The last time we've had FSP support added to our tree, it was a mess. It broke things across the tree. I'd like for that to not happen again.
INTEL SOFTWARE LICENSE AGREEMENT
Declined, thank you!
Alex
On Wed, Apr 2, 2014 at 9:38 AM, mrnuke mr.nuke.me@gmail.com wrote:
That is a clear attempt to circumvent the wishes of the rightsholders to this project.
That part I believe you are missing here is that this is a balancing act. The vendors are rightsholders too. They have knowledge we need. Unfortunately, most of them no longer want to release it -- it's not 1999. It's all well and good to say "well sod them then" but that's simply not an option on a large scale. I don't like it, you don't like it, we don't like it, ... but there it is.
ron
-
mrnuke -
ron minnich