4 ms·

Well the license specifically says you will not permit a third party to either. I don't really speak legalese, but does permit include having to then make all

Well the license specifically says you will not permit a third party to either. I don't really speak legalese, but does permit include having to then make all of your own users agree not to to avoid a penalty? As mentioned in the other comment thread though, I imagine the reality of this clause is to prevent media outlets (such as Phoronix who would traditionally do exactly this kind of benchmarking) from downloading the microcode and publishing numbers directly.

ddtaylor 8y ago
> Well the license specifically says you will not permit a third party to either. That might as well read as "you can't provide cloud computing" since you can't know what someone is going to execute on their server before they execute it!
- aisofteng 8y ago
  And nobody releases production code to a cloud environment without performance testing of significant changes.
  - bionsystem 8y ago
    You could say they don't have to publish the results... Although it only differs the problem. If I build my SAAS on top of a cloud service that runs on Intel, and my customer complains about perf results of my software before and after, and makes the result available somehow (knowing that it's on updated microcode or not), who is responsible ? The cloud provider, myself, or my customer ? Etc etc. This is a legal mess and a strong attack on freedom.
- ballenf 8y ago
  Not only that but standard development processes involve testing code against different environments. Comparing arbitrary code execution times on this platform versus another could easily be called 'benchmarking'. It's just so strange to sell a general purpose processor but then prohibit certain types of code depending on the state of mind of the developer. The same block of code could be permitted or prohibited based on the intent. It's nuts and a legal morass that is hard to imagine any lawyer proposing as a good idea.
terminalcommand 8y ago
> I don't really speak legalese, but does permit include having to then make all of your own users agree not to to avoid a penalty? As a service provider, you will need to inform your existing users about this restriction and put the restriction in your user agreement for new users. After that you can relax, if any of your users publish benchmarks, you'll have to warn the user and then take the benchmarks out. You don't have to actively search for violations, but if you notice one on your own, or you get notified (for example via email), you'll need to take it down. If we're not allowed to share the results of benchmarks and comparisons, the only action that comes to my mind is: 1) Never buy Intel again, if presented with a viable choice! 2) Prepare and share ready-made benchmarking live USBs/utilities, so people can see the horrors Intel has caused them without violating the license. 3) Dump benchmarking results online from countries, where the Delaware courts mentioned in the article has no jurisdiction upon. 4) Get every copy of this microcode license prepared for different countries, sue the license in each of them, and have Intel struggle with it.
- harry8 8y ago
  5) Publish the benchmarks, dare Intel to sue. Make fun of them for publicity. May be a reasonable and cheap way to get some publicity for a startup. Obviously requires a deeper assessment due anyone looking into it...

ddtaylor 8y ago

> Well the license specifically says you will not permit a third party to either. That might as well read as "you can't provide cloud computing" since you can't know what someone is going to execute on their server before they execute it!

aisofteng 8y ago
And nobody releases production code to a cloud environment without performance testing of significant changes.
- bionsystem 8y ago
  You could say they don't have to publish the results... Although it only differs the problem. If I build my SAAS on top of a cloud service that runs on Intel, and my customer complains about perf results of my software before and after, and makes the result available somehow (knowing that it's on updated microcode or not), who is responsible ? The cloud provider, myself, or my customer ? Etc etc. This is a legal mess and a strong attack on freedom.
ballenf 8y ago
Not only that but standard development processes involve testing code against different environments. Comparing arbitrary code execution times on this platform versus another could easily be called 'benchmarking'. It's just so strange to sell a general purpose processor but then prohibit certain types of code depending on the state of mind of the developer. The same block of code could be permitted or prohibited based on the intent. It's nuts and a legal morass that is hard to imagine any lawyer proposing as a good idea.

terminalcommand 8y ago

> I don't really speak legalese, but does permit include having to then make all of your own users agree not to to avoid a penalty? As a service provider, you will need to inform your existing users about this restriction and put the restriction in your user agreement for new users. After that you can relax, if any of your users publish benchmarks, you'll have to warn the user and then take the benchmarks out. You don't have to actively search for violations, but if you notice one on your own, or you get notified (for example via email), you'll need to take it down. If we're not allowed to share the results of benchmarks and comparisons, the only action that comes to my mind is: 1) Never buy Intel again, if presented with a viable choice! 2) Prepare and share ready-made benchmarking live USBs/utilities, so people can see the horrors Intel has caused them without violating the license. 3) Dump benchmarking results online from countries, where the Delaware courts mentioned in the article has no jurisdiction upon. 4) Get every copy of this microcode license prepared for different countries, sue the license in each of them, and have Intel struggle with it.

harry8 8y ago
5) Publish the benchmarks, dare Intel to sue. Make fun of them for publicity. May be a reasonable and cheap way to get some publicity for a startup. Obviously requires a deeper assessment due anyone looking into it...