4 ms·
My guess is Intel will revert the license change soon. It's just too absurd to stay. But if not, I wonder if distros could have two packages, named with appropr
by mpartel 8y ago
My guess is Intel will revert the license change soon. It's just too absurd to stay. But if not, I wonder if distros could have two packages, named with appropriate and well-deserved passive-aggressiveness, e.g.: intel-microcode-insecure and intel-microcode-legally-restricted.
- jgtrosh 8y agoAnd maybe they'll mark benchmarking packages as conflicting with intel-microcode-legally-restricted?
- akx 8y agoInstalling the benchmarking package, or running it, isn't against the license. Providing or publishing (comparative?) numbers while the microcode package is applied would be.
- dvfjsdhgfv 8y agoThere is nothing passive-aggressive in intel-microcode-legally-restricted, it's just a statement of fact.
- mpartel 8y agoIt's not quite that clear cut IMO. E.g. "intel-microcode-legacy" and "intel-microcode" would be more diplomatic (disgustingly so IMO). And one could argue that every package in non-free would deserve a "-legally-restricted" suffix.
- deleted 8y ago[deleted]