[coreboot] [PATCH] disabling microcode update

[xdrudis]

On Sun, Feb 27, 2011 at 01:30:19AM +0200, Alex G. wrote:
> On 02/27/2011 12:46 AM, xdrudis wrote:
> > On Sat, Feb 26, 2011 at 11:22:17PM +0200, Alex G. wrote:
>>>  You will disagree and say that, as long as
>>> it can be updated, and source code exists for it, it is software, not
>>> hardware.
> > 
> > Let's leave this aside. If it was a picture of something nice instead 
> > of microcode you would still have legal complications depending on the license.
> > When you include a work in another you create a derivative work and 
> > need permission from the copyright holders of both. No one asks you what
> > the works are (ok, yes, they do, but that's for details).
> > 
> No, I'm not leaving it aside. 

Yes, you are. Please read yourself. Your argument revolves on licenses not
the nature of the copyrighted work. I left aside whether it's software 
or hardware.

> The microcode you wish to disable (and
> IIRC you, Peter, Stepan, and I agree to providing this choice via an
> elegant Kconfig option) was provided by AMD, and they have given us
> permission to use it in our code, with our license. In fact, they
> provided the (coreboot) patches themselves. The developers provided
> permission for the microcode to be used with coreboot, by committing it.
> 

The issue is not the rights of the microcode authors. The issue is the
rights of author A of code C that licensed her code under GPL and
contributor T incorporated to coreboot. A never gave permission to
link C with the microcode (both because it does not have source, and
even if it had because its license does not grant the 4 freedoms).
It's A who can sue, not AMD. (A==T is possible but the sign-off might
be interpreted differently).

Again, IANAL, people report lawyers have ok'ed this, implicit licenses
in sign-off are complicated, A may not be aware or willing to sue, 
risk mitigation is a personal choice , etc.,etc.,etc. I'm not trying
to scare people off. Just clarifying the issue, then each one may judge.

Thanks Peter, Rudolf and all for the review and commit. 
Good summary of the discussion in the help, Peter.