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
