@Suiseiseki Microcode in an Intel CPU is not hardware circuits - it's software. Pretending otherwise is dishonest. When you power on an Intel CPU it runs code out of ROM that performs a series of operations (including performing cryptographic validation of other blobs) before jumping to the reset vector. And, well, good luck making the argument that there's no license associated with that - would you argue that a copy of Linux in ROM creates no GPL obligations?
@mjg59 >it's software
The circuits are circuits that are hardware, even though they happen to encode microprocessor instructions.
>(including performing cryptographic validation of other blobs)
If you don't include any proprietary software on core 2 duo's, such cryptographic validation is not done.
>would you argue that a copy of Linux in ROM creates no GPL obligations?
There would be no obligation under the GPLv2 to provide installation information, but the source code would need to be provided.
The circuits are circuits that are hardware, even though they happen to encode microprocessor instructions.
>(including performing cryptographic validation of other blobs)
If you don't include any proprietary software on core 2 duo's, such cryptographic validation is not done.
>would you argue that a copy of Linux in ROM creates no GPL obligations?
There would be no obligation under the GPLv2 to provide installation information, but the source code would need to be provided.
@Suiseiseki The only way that source code distribution could be required is if software licenses can apply, so why do you think that would apply to Linux in mask ROM but not Intel microcode?
@mjg59 You do not need a license to operate hardware.
The user does deserve the source code to the hardware microcode, alas Intel does not provide it.
The user does deserve the source code to the hardware microcode, alas Intel does not provide it.
@Suiseiseki But microcode is copyrightable software, as established in decades-old case law.
@mjg59 I don't really care about what bizarre conclusion a court arrived at decades ago, as the conclusion is not applicable to operating hardware.
@Suiseiseki Your claims are simply wrong. Microcode doesn't change state simply because it's embodied in ROM - its copyrightability isn't related to the physical layout of gates, it's related to be functionality they embody (ie, if I were to encode the same microcode in a different physical layout, it would still be a copyright violation). It's software, it can (for good or bad) be bound by software licenses. In the US, first sale doctrine likely still applies, but other restrictions may exist.