Re: Microcode license [#3]
Um.. just to reiterate what's going on here:
For Debian to distribute the microcode at all, we need permission to
distribute it[1].
For Debian to distribute the microcode *as a part of Debian*, we'd need
the microcode to meet the DFSG.
[No one (other than Thomas Bushnell) is advocating that the microcode
be distributed under the DFSG.]
For the microcode loader to be distributed *as a part of Debian* the
microcode loader, of course, needs to meet the DFSG.
However, note that if the only use for the microcode loader is to load
the non-free microcode, we'll wind up putting it into contrib. Contrib is
an official part of Debian, but it's a part that is useless without some
non-free element (which Debian might or might not distribute).
Which brings us back to the first point: If Debian is to be allowed
to distribute the microcode then Debian has to be granted permission to
distribute it.
It's really not any more complicted than that.
--
Raul
[1] different people have different ideas of what Debian is -- and that
none of them are likely to be relevant in any legal context[2]
[2] except maybe in a court such as Delaware's Chancery Court
(http://courts.state.de.us/chancery), which in some senses is more of
a moral court than a legal court. But most of Debian is outside the
jurisdiction of this court, so this is a fairly trivial comment.
Reply to: