Intel EULA Agreement Forbids Linux Users From Sharing CPU Benchmarks of L1TF Performance Hit

Written by Jon Sutton on Fri, Aug 24, 2018 11:20 AM

UPDATE: Intel has been in contact in regards to this piece, providing a statement on the situation from an Intel spokesperson.

"We have simplified the Intel license to make it easier to distribute CPU microcode updates and posted the new version. As an active member of the open source community, we continue to welcome all feedback and thank the community."

The updated version of the Intel license can be viewed here, but here it is in full:

Redistribution and use in binary form, without modification, are permitted, provided that the following conditions are met:

  • Redistributions must reproduce the above copyright notice and the following disclaimer in the documentation and/or other materials provided with the distribution.
  • Neither the name of Intel Corporation nor the names of its suppliers may be used to endorse or promote products derived from this software without specific prior written permission.
  • No reverse engineering, decompilation, or disassembly of this software is permitted.

“Binary form” includes any format that is commonly used for electronic conveyance that is a reversible, bit-exact translation of binary representation to ASCII or ISO text, for example “uuencode.”

The good news then is Intel is listening and has altered its license agreement in order to reflect this.

Original Story: 23-Aug-2018 - Intel EULA Agreement Forbids Linux Users From Sharing CPU Benchmarks of L1TF Performance Hit

Intel has pushed out new microcode updates for its CPUs running on Linux distributions designed to mitigate potential attacks, such as the recently published ‘Foreshadow’ L1 Terminal Fault processor vulnerability.

But, and you just knew there would be a but, tucked inside the EULA (End User License Agreement) that must be agreed to prior to the installation, there is a section prohibiting the publication of CPU benchmarks associated with the update. This would prevent, for example, someone comparing the before and after performance hit from installing the microcode update.

"You will not, and will not allow any third party to (i) use, copy, distribute, sell or offer to sell the Software or associated documentation; (ii) modify, adapt, enhance, disassemble, decompile, reverse engineer, change or create derivative works from the Software except and only to the extent as specifically required by mandatory applicable laws or any applicable third party license terms accompanying the Software; (iii) use or make the Software available for the use or benefit of third parties; or (iv) use the Software on Your products other than those that include the Intel hardware product(s), platform(s), or software identified in the Software; or (v) publish or provide any Software benchmark or comparison test results."

It’s the bit in bold we’re primarily interested in, letting users know they are forbidden from publishing benchmark results or providing results for others to publish. This represents a rather gross invasion of consumer rights and naturally highlights the potential performance hit that Intel is attempting to cover up. Trying to hide this data isn’t going to help anyone, acting as a Streisand effect rather blocking coverage.

Needless to say, these EULA’s aren’t worth a jot in the European Union and plenty of other places too, making Intel’s attempted cover-up seem all the more futile. Naturally, a few Linux-focused sites have already benchmarked the update prior to the discovery of the EULA terms, identifying varying degrees of performance impact depending on system tasks.

While at the moment this is limited to Linux users running Intel CPUs, this is perhaps a more worrying portent of how Intel could attempt to prevent CPU benchmarks wholesale.

What are your thoughts, is this a step too far from Intel? Is this a blatant infringement of consumer rights? Let us know your ponderings!

Login or Register to join the debate

Rep
55
Offline
16:10 Aug-24-2018

People just get a Ryzen already. I can't recommend it eenough

5
Rep
3
Offline
06:02 Aug-24-2018

Must be a major performance loss after the update for them to sneak that clause into the EULA.

0
Rep
133
Offline
junior admin badge
03:23 Aug-24-2018

Face palm

0
Rep
25
Offline
admin approved badge
00:16 Aug-24-2018

Ryzen ftw

1
Rep
97
Offline
admin approved badge
22:24 Aug-23-2018

Once a scummy company, always a scummy company.


EA is a perfect example.

3
Rep
7
Offline
04:28 Aug-24-2018

Ha. Don't make me laugh. EA's crime is quite petty compared to what Intel did till date.

2
Rep
97
Offline
admin approved badge
09:39 Aug-24-2018

They're both terrible.

0
Rep
210
Offline
admin approved badge
18:14 Aug-23-2018

Wow, just wow :/

1
Rep
50
Offline
18:12 Aug-23-2018

the thing is, by putting that clause in there, we don't need to get the benchmarks, we already know that its really bad cause its bad enough for intel to legally threaten to stop people from talking about it. They played themselves.

19
Rep
61
Offline
admin approved badge
16:51 Aug-23-2018

Could a class-action lawsuit or a fine happen as a consequence ?

2
Rep
383
Offline
senior admin badge
17:02 Aug-23-2018

Nope don't think so. There's nothing really wrong with them providing an EULA like this, it's just not good for the customer.

3
Rep
272
Offline
admin approved badge
18:48 Aug-23-2018

You think so? Couldn't this be classed as "anti-consumer behavior", since they're essentially saying "you have to keep your mouth shut about how this update f*cked your performance". This isn't a development NDA or a trade embargo. It just sounds nefarious.

2
Rep
2
Offline
23:20 Aug-24-2018

Don't know how it's in most contries but in my country EULA provisions can be subjected to court's control and be deemed unfair or harmful for consumer since you can only accept or refuse them. The same principle doesn't apply to other...

0
Rep
2
Offline
23:21 Aug-24-2018

... contracts if both parties have equal say about what provisions does the contract contain.

0
Rep
1,041
Offline
senior admin badge
18:14 Aug-23-2018

I'm pretty sure LinusTech will attempt to find out xD

4
Rep
94
Offline
16:30 Aug-23-2018

Hmm, I'm not sure if intel updated microcode for the 4th gen, but I updated them yesterday.

1

Can They Run... |

| 60FPS, High, 720p
Core i5-10400F 6-Core 2.90GHz GeForce GTX 1050 Ti Gigabyte D5 4GB 16GB
| 60FPS, Medium, 1080p
Ryzen R5 1600 Radeon R9 280 Club3D royalKing 3GB Edition 8GB
| 60FPS, High, 1080p
Core i7-11800H 8-Core 1.90GHz GeForce RTX 3060 Mobile 16GB
50% Yes [2 votes]
| 60FPS, High, 1080p
Core i7-11800H 8-Core 1.90GHz GeForce RTX 3060 Mobile 16GB
100% Yes [1 votes]
| 60FPS, High, 1080p
Core i7-11800H 8-Core 1.90GHz GeForce RTX 3060 Mobile 16GB
100% Yes [1 votes]
| 60FPS, High, 4k
Core i5-11600 6-Core 2.8GHz GeForce RTX 3060 Ultra 16GB
| 30FPS, Low, 1080p
Core 2 Duo E8400 3.0GHz GeForce GTS 450 Asus DirectCU TOP 1GB Edition 4GB
0% No [1 votes]
| 60FPS, Medium, 1080p
Core i5-8250U 4-Core 1.6GHz GeForce GTX 1050 MSI 2GB 16GB
| 60FPS, Low, 1440p
Core i5-9400 6-Core 2.9GHz GeForce GTX 1660 Ti Gainward Ghost 6GB 4GB
0% No [1 votes]