Why I no longer use the MIT license for new projects
enderverse.org
enderverse.org
For example, the Minix 2 license pre-April 2000 would have been a no-go for Intel.
Furthermore, GPLv3 says that user products ("A product is a consumer product regardless of whether the product has substantial commercial, industrial or non-consumer uses, unless such uses represent the only significant mode of use of the product.") which support updates must provide access to source code AND installation instructions.
The article mentions "Intel released a patch" and the Wikipedia page at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intel_Management_Engine#Assert... says patching is possible via firmware (UEFI, BIOS) updates , so this clause clearly applies.
Thus, there are alternative preventative license even within the FOSS space.
The anti-Tivo clause in GPLv3 is probably the only thing in available licenses that would affect the outcome here. Specifically that is because it would require Intel to release the keys needed to build and install your own firmware patches. But that doesn't seem to be OP's direct complaint, which is more about being morally upset with the code being used in a backdoor. I'm not sure GPLv3 would address that?
While I'm sure Intel is happy they don't have to release any source code for their management engine, it would not be a show stopper if they did. GPLv2 or MPL wouldn't be substantially different in outcomes as far as I can see.
Huh? One would think releasing the source should give them much better plausible deniability. Like, they'd just have to go: "Look at the source. See? No backdoors in there!"
> Especially for IME, which is much harder than regular software to extract and reverse engineer.
Yeah, so people would be all "Just because I couldn't find it doesn't mean it isn't hidden in there somewhere." See? Not very plausible deniability at all.