On Mon Aug 7, 2023 at 9:06 AM EEST, Jo Van Bulck wrote: > On 28.07.23 20:54, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote > > It should be relatively easy to relicense the code as most of the > > commits have Intel copyright. > > > > Personally I would not mind because that would give opportunity for > > code that I wrote to have a wider audience but it needs to be forked > > with some other license first. > > > I support also the idea of refining the selftest as a run-time, which > > could perhaps consist of the following steps: > > > > 1. Create a repository of the self-compiling selftest with GPLv2. You > > could add also AUTHORS file for the initial content by crawling this > > data from the git log. > > 2. Create a commit with sob's from the required stakeholders, which > > changes the license to something more appropriate, and get the > > sob's with some process. > > Thank you Jarkko, appreciated! I plan to start working on the fork from > next month onwards. However, I think GPL would be the best license for > this project and I'd prefer to stick to it for the time being. > > Best, > Jo Ask from me permission when you have things moving forward, and I'll very likely give permission to all my post-Intel contributions, which are not that many. PS. You can quite easily get full authors list with some git magic so pretty easy to keep things legal wise in shape. BR, Jarkko
