Re: Microcode license [#3]

[Edmund GRIMLEY EVANS <edmundo@rano.org>]

Thomas Bushnell, BSG <tb@becket.net>:

> > 3) Intel calls microcode "data file" (see the email from
> > Intel).
> >    Thus no software, no restriction in GPL and DFSG (like
> > strictly copyright
> >    for distribute a license) (and microcode is similar: you
> > can distribute,
> >    but not modify).
> >    Thus we can use the "mere aggregation" and put it together
> > the
> >    microcode loader into the main section ?
> 
> Nonsense.  It is not a data file, it is a program.  The GPL doesn't
> contain any exemption for data files anyhow.  It says that you have to
> distribute things in the preferred form for modification, and you have
> to grant certain rights, and those requirements apply whether or not
> you call it a "data file".

Nevertheless, if the microcode loader can load different microcode,
and the microcode can be loaded by a different microcode loader, there
ought to be a way of supplying both together so that it can reasonably
be called "mere aggregation".

Maybe you could compare it with supplying an image under one licence
and an image viewer under a different licence, plus a config file that
facilitates applying one to the other.

Edmund