In article <19366.1149547772@splode.eterna.com.au>,
matthew green  <mrg@eterna.com.au> wrote:
>   
>   Another idea would be to include the ucode in base. It seems that ath
>   microcode has a similar license and we have it in base [0].
>
>the license seems 3-clause UCB-alike to me.  what do others think?
>
>i think we could just put it in base.
>   
>   Maybe this issue should be directed to board@ or core@.
>
>yeah.
>
>[0]: I've been told that by including it in CVS would be considered a
>   modification. If this is true, we could make the binary file a C
>   array, include that file in the CVS tree and then build the original
>   binary file that way. IANAL. 
>   
>how does putting it CVS modify it?  i don't buy this at all.

I don't buy this either. It looks like any other firmware from intel.

christos