From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.1 required=3.0 tests=DKIM_SIGNED,DKIM_VALID, DKIM_VALID_AU,FREEMAIL_FORGED_FROMDOMAIN,FREEMAIL_FROM, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS, USER_AGENT_SANE_1 autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 77EEDC43603 for ; Tue, 10 Dec 2019 20:38:52 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4990F2073B for ; Tue, 10 Dec 2019 20:38:52 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com header.i=@gmail.com header.b="vNZC2c31" Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1726682AbfLJUiv (ORCPT ); Tue, 10 Dec 2019 15:38:51 -0500 Received: from mail-yw1-f47.google.com ([209.85.161.47]:38199 "EHLO mail-yw1-f47.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1726366AbfLJUiv (ORCPT ); Tue, 10 Dec 2019 15:38:51 -0500 Received: by mail-yw1-f47.google.com with SMTP id 10so7847778ywv.5 for ; Tue, 10 Dec 2019 12:38:50 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=subject:to:cc:references:from:message-id:date:user-agent :mime-version:in-reply-to:content-language:content-transfer-encoding; bh=aDjdTvrUeK/bSN0v8pN7r/Ux0R/486Hmt5WKTy520I8=; b=vNZC2c31KXhPicaWILMmB43gFnc/c8xfTm1LXdDlhirRWAg7gvrr2KxZvjWqQ9NO/q SJWRPMh4Rda+ujyqqoAD5+ryanUkOk7v4eCQHx3gQyjiEphsUuMTYzzELJ3QYwG9a34H cdTHtu06BbT7ZX6pHSLbSKdf4GwNU++0LKJytZOI0Hpl1jf1v16juSpUpBn0DlA290pW q7CviIP4vz1nyLUVHxzWI/8M4gEuqDLW+lHfWLysun14KJ+PjS+LNxm0GbOCLUleLaEi aaME26tW3uSS5qaeu1STH0G2aCFehjgh2GQP/CbnnCxnpj82pzKhhQz0AVNNwvSdImjv 8MNw== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:subject:to:cc:references:from:message-id:date :user-agent:mime-version:in-reply-to:content-language :content-transfer-encoding; bh=aDjdTvrUeK/bSN0v8pN7r/Ux0R/486Hmt5WKTy520I8=; b=fd094Opm5Na35OJ9qYFVz0fgeUQ3eVfXLnNmP+oLYdMY6FKrtwStlqYY0U5s49v0u2 PhzD8JQB+B/XsMVJ70kUu+OIATprFK6WJAa07w02spTFknE36HEBs3eK4Itwf4dzwQbf bYm6XAR6eF2g17oIAM2aq7keOc08ZexehdAq0ngzG5QLCRaJqE/fnN58cT7Eubi000BO 6VbCc4fCfytWTx67iwAZomdxNTkoil2bYLNJdnt76/TXQBjza4Pu61yZoU2PRJnO4+pj Uyf1Tp61W4gDhK+npPc1VFLbwig7gdRRMXa50jvbtMB89Rj626H0Bs49RrgrUw1Q4yhJ rn8A== X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAVVkueyjw/N+s96pDXwjTxhSFKlVpl0JJfWLVspv43Jl/JZMyfC C3NslCNIuYGdjVwgqWnfbhI= X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqxsfbS+lV2GCPCEkxKT1OBL2fxU56VxXLK8g4XCOeDGjVBg8/i3M1+m+Pzrk2kaeE82OoZl1Q== X-Received: by 2002:a0d:ca82:: with SMTP id m124mr25712670ywd.453.1576010329901; Tue, 10 Dec 2019 12:38:49 -0800 (PST) Received: from [192.168.1.83] ([99.85.27.166]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id t3sm2091985ywi.18.2019.12.10.12.38.43 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 bits=128/128); Tue, 10 Dec 2019 12:38:49 -0800 (PST) Subject: Re: Could /Documentation/technical/commit-graph.txt be relicensed under a permissive license? To: Junio C Hamano , KOLANICH Cc: git@vger.kernel.org, Derrick Stolee , Jeff King , Elijah Newren References: From: Derrick Stolee Message-ID: <70575b23-6adb-a29b-8df8-f9099f86eb0e@gmail.com> Date: Tue, 10 Dec 2019 15:38:35 -0500 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:72.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/72.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Language: en-US Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org On 12/10/2019 3:10 PM, Junio C Hamano wrote: > KOLANICH writes: I don't appear to have the original message? Perhaps it was directly addressed to Junio? >> ... the license of git itself is GPL, so I am not >> allowed to use these 2 files to create an own permissive-licensed >> tool reading this file. > > It is a wrong conclusion, isn't it? > > GPL copyright protects the expression of the document, but the > copyright protects only the expression, and does not protect the > underlying format itself and the idea behind it. So I do not see a > need to relicense the documentation text at all. (Insert "I am not a lawyer" warning.) I think this is the correct interpretation. One can interact with binary files as you want. In fact, there are likely privately licensed products that interact with Git's pack-files even though their format documentation is under GPL. What _could_ be problematic is repeating the documentation directly in another permissive-licensed repository. Thanks, -Stolee