At Tue, 06 Jun 2006 08:49:32 +1000,
matthew green 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.

Well, if we just make sure we use -kb I guess there's no problem.