Leo Famulari <l...@famulari.name> skribis: > On Tue, Jan 09, 2018 at 06:10:02PM -0500, Mark H Weaver wrote: >> Marius Bakke <mba...@fastmail.com> writes: >> > Katherine Cox-Buday <cox.katherin...@gmail.com> writes: >> >> I am also interested -- more from a philisophical perspective -- how >> >> GuixSD and GNU squares with these kinds of security updates. >> > >> > In my opinion, CPU microcode falls under "non-functional data", as >> > expressly permitted by the GNU FSDG. >> >> I strongly disagree. CPU microcode is absolutely functional data. >> It determines how the CPU functions. > > Personally I would really like to have microcode deployment integrated > into GuixSD. But I agree with Mark here, and I don't see how it can be > reconciled with the FSDG.
Agreed. Updated microcode can surely be considered software, and per the FSDG we will not distribute it. Should GuixSD nevertheless provide a mechanism to support microcode updates, while not steering users to particular proprietary microcode? Just like Linux-libre (attempts to) support loading of proprietary firmware at the user’s choice? Would it make sense at all? The Intel CPU situation is terrible from a user freedom POV and there are no signs of it getting better. I think the free software community must stand strong against it. Ludo’.
