Licensensing statement and packages in 'main'

[Tom Reynolds]

Previously reported here (and on IRC) - it's not clear which issue tracker you prefer:
https://github.com/canonical-websites/www.ubuntu.com/issues/3945

As of Aug 26 (and still today), https://www.ubuntu.com/licensing (snapshot at http://archive.is/tXMSI ) states that

> all application software included in the Ubuntu main component
>
> must include source code AND
> must allow modification and distribution of modified copies under the same license.

My understanding is that Intel

* does not include source code for the opaque microcode update blobs they distribute, which, as we must assume, include executable / executed code
* does not permit modification or redistribution of microcode

This may also apply to other packages in the 'main' component, such as (but not limited to) 'amd64-microcode'.

So, at least in my interpretation, it would seem that either the licensing statement at https://www.ubuntu.com/licensing is incorrect / outdated or the current practice of including binary blobs in the 'main' component violates this license policy.

[Tom Reynolds (tomreyn)]

https://github.com/canonical-websites/www.ubuntu.com/issues/3945 has received a reply on this, explaining the distinction made here for 'application software' vs (firmware and microcode).

Personally I find this distinction to mislead users about what to expect in 'main' and suggest to reconsider this policy.

However, with this explanation given I no longer consider this a website bug.

[Peter Mahnke (peterm-ubuntu)]

it isn't really 'invalid' but I wasn't sure what else to put it as.