Re: Intel microcode CPU (#3)
"Giacomo Catenazzi" <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote in message
Now microcode as a new license
In 2000 (or 2001) we already discussed about license of the microcode,
and I convinced Intel to change license.
But also the second license was not so clear, and a strict interpretation
doesn't allowed us to distribute in non-free.
Now intel put a new license (I don't know if I convinced again Intel
or the change is independent).
So I ask you if now the license is enough free for non-free:
/ Copyright (c) <1995-2008>, Intel Corporation.
/ All rights reserved.
/ Redistribution. Redistribution and use in binary form, without
/ permitted provided that the following conditions are met:
/ .Redistributions must reproduce the above copyright notice
and the following
/ disclaimer in the documentation and/or other materials provided
/ .Neither the name of Intel Corporation nor the names of
its suppliers may be used
/ to endorse or promote products derived from this software without
/ written permission.
/ .No reverse engineering, decompilation, or disassembly of
this software is
/ ."Binary form" includes any format commonly used for
/ which is a reversible, bit-exact translation of binary
representation to ASCII or
/ ISO text, for example, "uuencode."
/ DISCLAIMER. THIS SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED BY THE COPYRIGHT
/ HOLDERS AND CONTRIBUTORS "AS IS" AND ANY EXPRESS OR IMPLIED
/ WARRANTIES, INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, THE IMPLIED
/ WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY AND FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR
/ PURPOSE ARE DISCLAIMED. IN NO EVENT SHALL THE COPYRIGHT OWNER
/ OR CONTRIBUTORS BE LIABLE FOR ANY DIRECT, INDIRECT, INCIDENTAL,
/ SPECIAL, EXEMPLARY, OR CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES (INCLUDING, BUT
/ NOT LIMITED TO, PROCUREMENT OF SUBSTITUTE GOODS OR SERVICES;
/ LOSS OF USE, DATA, OR PROFITS; OR BUSINESS INTERRUPTION) HOWEVER
/ CAUSED AND ON ANY THEORY OF LIABILITY, WHETHER IN CONTRACT,
/ STRICT LIABILITY, OR TORT (INCLUDING NEGLIGENCE OR OTHERWISE)
/ ARISING IN ANY WAY OUT OF THE USE OF THIS SOFTWARE, EVEN IF
/ ADVISED OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGE.
/ These microcode updates are distributed for the sole purpose of
/ installation in the BIOS or Operating System of computer systems
/ which include a Genuine Intel microprocessor sold or distributed
/ to or by you. You are not authorized to use this material for
/ any other purpose.
The old license was the last paragraph.
So the problematic part is still included. What do you think?
The first part clarify the meaning of the last paragraph?
I did not read or comment on the earlier licences. However,
While it is clear that UUecnoded disdtribution is allowed, it does not
explicitly indicate that gziped (or other binary achived) distibution is
allowed. However, on the other hand,
I think that clause is simply explaining that ascii representations still
qualify as the binary form,
and is not intended as a restriction on distribution formats.
Given then that gziped copies are a standard meathod of distributing
"unmodified" copies of binary data,
I'll take it as implicit that that is permitted.
Surely Debian has no need to modify the bytecode files themselves, so no
So the top part sounds fine. From that alone it sounds distributable.
That buttom part seems ok to me as well. It is limiting it's use, but that
is not unexpected in non-free licences.
There is effecively no other real use for the files anyway, except reverse
enginerring them, which was prohibited
in the top section.
So to me, It sounds distributable in non-free. Let's see if anybody else
sees any problem's I've missed.