Hacker News Reader

My guess is Intel will revert the license change soon. It's just too absurd to stay. But if not, I wonder if distros could have two packages, named with appropriate and well-deserved passive-aggressiveness, e.g.: intel-microcode-insecure and intel-microcode-legally-restricted.

View on HN

And maybe they'll mark benchmarking packages as conflicting with intel-microcode-legally-restricted?

Installing the benchmarking package, or running it, isn't against the license. Providing or publishing (comparative?) numbers while the microcode package is applied would be.

There is nothing passive-aggressive in intel-microcode-legally-restricted, it's just a statement of fact.

It's not quite that clear cut IMO.

E.g. "intel-microcode-legacy" and "intel-microcode" would be more diplomatic (disgustingly so IMO).

And one could argue that every package in non-free would deserve a "-legally-restricted" suffix.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com