Marius Bakke <mba...@fastmail.com> writes: > Katherine Cox-Buday <cox.katherin...@gmail.com> writes: > >> Chris Marusich <cmmarus...@gmail.com> writes: >> >>> Leo Famulari <l...@famulari.name> writes: >> >>> I wonder: how easy will it be to install those firmware/microcode >>> updates if you are using GuixSD? In particular, I'm curious about the >>> case of the Lenovo x200 with libreboot, since that's what I use >>> personally. >> >> 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. > It is not required for the processor to function, it is merely *a > posteriori* data that the CPU can use to fix erratic behaviour. Microcode *is* required for the processor to function. Upgrading it is optional, because the CPU contains a copy of the microcode in its ROM, but that doesn't change the fact that the microcode is required. By the same argument that you presented here, any proprietary software (e.g. a BIOS) would be considered optional and therefore non-functional data as long as an older copy of that software is included in the hardware of the machine. Mark