[coreboot] Intel FSP on Bayley Bay CRB: No output

Martin Roth martin.roth at se-eng.com
Wed Jun 4 23:18:15 CEST 2014

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....


On 06/04/2014 03:04 PM, ron minnich wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 4, 2014 at 1:57 PM, Martin Roth <martin.roth at se-eng.com 
> <mailto:martin.roth at 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

More information about the coreboot mailing list