{"thread":{"id":"52425","subject":"Could /Documentation/technical/commit-graph.txt be relicensed under a permissive license?","startedAt":"2019-12-10T20:00:17Z","lastAt":"2019-12-15T02:29:38Z","messageCount":11,"participants":["KOLANICH","Junio C Hamano","Derrick Stolee","Jeff King","Ed Maste","Johannes Schindelin","brian m. carlson","Jakub Narebski"],"isPatch":false,"patchVersion":null,"patchTotal":null},"messages":[{"id":"387905","messageId":"E2770343-BB39-458C-835E-04F0753783C3@mail.ru","threadId":"52425","inReplyTo":null,"subject":"Could /Documentation/technical/commit-graph.txt be relicensed under a permissive license?","fromName":"KOLANICH","fromEmail":"kolan_n@mail.ru","sentAt":"2019-12-10T19:31:18Z","receivedAt":"2019-12-10T20:00:17Z","isPatch":false,"sender":{"key":"kolan_n@mail.ru","avatar":"https://gravatar.com/avatar/ea84c832f50cfa8754b0830df76fecd94b81ca05862851d60b7ed86ab28f0913?d=mp&s=160"},"body":"Hello. https://github.com/git/git/blob/master/Documentation/technical/commit-graph.txt documents a file format for exporting commit graphs for consumption by third-party tools. But the license of this file is not permissive, and 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. This probably defeats the purpose of exporting these info and then reading it with another applications.\n\nCould the doc file be relicensed under a permissive license?\n"},{"id":"387915","messageId":"xmqqimmoq6vw.fsf@gitster-ct.c.googlers.com","threadId":"52425","inReplyTo":"E2770343-BB39-458C-835E-04F0753783C3@mail.ru","subject":"Re: Could /Documentation/technical/commit-graph.txt be relicensed under a permissive license?","fromName":"Junio C Hamano","fromEmail":"gitster@pobox.com","sentAt":"2019-12-10T20:10:11Z","receivedAt":"2019-12-10T20:10:20Z","isPatch":false,"sender":{"key":"gitster@pobox.com","avatar":"https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/54884?v=4"},"body":"KOLANICH writes:\n\n> ... the license of git itself is GPL, so I am not\n> allowed to use these 2 files to create an own permissive-licensed\n> tool reading this file. \n\nIt is a wrong conclusion, isn't it?\n\nGPL copyright protects the expression of the document, but the\ncopyright protects only the expression, and does not protect the\nunderlying format itself and the idea behind it. So I do not see a\nneed to relicense the documentation text at all.\n\n"},{"id":"387917","messageId":"70575b23-6adb-a29b-8df8-f9099f86eb0e@gmail.com","threadId":"52425","inReplyTo":"xmqqimmoq6vw.fsf@gitster-ct.c.googlers.com","subject":"Re: Could /Documentation/technical/commit-graph.txt be relicensed under a permissive license?","fromName":"Derrick Stolee","fromEmail":"stolee@gmail.com","sentAt":"2019-12-10T20:38:35Z","receivedAt":"2019-12-10T20:38:52Z","isPatch":false,"sender":{"key":"stolee@gmail.com","avatar":"https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/570044?v=4"},"body":"On 12/10/2019 3:10 PM, Junio C Hamano wrote:\n> KOLANICH writes:\n\nI don't appear to have the original message? Perhaps it was\ndirectly addressed to Junio?\n\n>> ... the license of git itself is GPL, so I am not\n>> allowed to use these 2 files to create an own permissive-licensed\n>> tool reading this file. \n> \n> It is a wrong conclusion, isn't it?\n> \n> GPL copyright protects the expression of the document, but the\n> copyright protects only the expression, and does not protect the\n> underlying format itself and the idea behind it. So I do not see a\n> need to relicense the documentation text at all.\n\n(Insert \"I am not a lawyer\" warning.)\n\nI think this is the correct interpretation. One can interact with\nbinary files as you want. In fact, there are likely privately\nlicensed products that interact with Git's pack-files even though\ntheir format documentation is under GPL.\n\nWhat _could_ be problematic is repeating the documentation directly\nin another permissive-licensed repository.\n\nThanks,\n-Stolee\n\n"},{"id":"387918","messageId":"20191210205056.GA14079@coredump.intra.peff.net","threadId":"52425","inReplyTo":"70575b23-6adb-a29b-8df8-f9099f86eb0e@gmail.com","subject":"Re: Could /Documentation/technical/commit-graph.txt be relicensed under a permissive license?","fromName":"Jeff King","fromEmail":"peff@peff.net","sentAt":"2019-12-10T20:50:56Z","receivedAt":"2019-12-10T20:50:59Z","isPatch":false,"sender":{"key":"peff@peff.net","avatar":"https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/45925?v=4"},"body":"On Tue, Dec 10, 2019 at 03:38:35PM -0500, Derrick Stolee wrote:\n\n> On 12/10/2019 3:10 PM, Junio C Hamano wrote:\n> > KOLANICH writes:\n> \n> I don't appear to have the original message? Perhaps it was\n> directly addressed to Junio?\n\nIt made it to me via the list, too.\n\n> > GPL copyright protects the expression of the document, but the\n> > copyright protects only the expression, and does not protect the\n> > underlying format itself and the idea behind it. So I do not see a\n> > need to relicense the documentation text at all.\n> \n> (Insert \"I am not a lawyer\" warning.)\n> \n> I think this is the correct interpretation. One can interact with\n> binary files as you want. In fact, there are likely privately\n> licensed products that interact with Git's pack-files even though\n> their format documentation is under GPL.\n> \n> What _could_ be problematic is repeating the documentation directly\n> in another permissive-licensed repository.\n\nThat's my understanding as well. That said, I would not be opposed to\nsome kind of statement in the documentation making our view explicit.\n\n-Peff\n"},{"id":"387919","messageId":"2ed3e8f1-082d-4eb3-f1f1-e1d184003ced@gmail.com","threadId":"52425","inReplyTo":"20191210205056.GA14079@coredump.intra.peff.net","subject":"Re: Could /Documentation/technical/commit-graph.txt be relicensed under a permissive license?","fromName":"Derrick Stolee","fromEmail":"stolee@gmail.com","sentAt":"2019-12-10T20:58:20Z","receivedAt":"2019-12-10T20:58:24Z","isPatch":false,"sender":{"key":"stolee@gmail.com","avatar":"https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/570044?v=4"},"body":"On 12/10/2019 3:50 PM, Jeff King wrote:\n> On Tue, Dec 10, 2019 at 03:38:35PM -0500, Derrick Stolee wrote:\n> \n>> On 12/10/2019 3:10 PM, Junio C Hamano wrote:\n>>> KOLANICH writes:\n>>\n>> I don't appear to have the original message? Perhaps it was\n>> directly addressed to Junio?\n> \n> It made it to me via the list, too.\n\nHm... I have had messages from the list be delayed somehow by Gmail.\n\n>>> GPL copyright protects the expression of the document, but the\n>>> copyright protects only the expression, and does not protect the\n>>> underlying format itself and the idea behind it. So I do not see a\n>>> need to relicense the documentation text at all.\n>>\n>> (Insert \"I am not a lawyer\" warning.)\n>>\n>> I think this is the correct interpretation. One can interact with\n>> binary files as you want. In fact, there are likely privately\n>> licensed products that interact with Git's pack-files even though\n>> their format documentation is under GPL.\n>>\n>> What _could_ be problematic is repeating the documentation directly\n>> in another permissive-licensed repository.\n> \n> That's my understanding as well. That said, I would not be opposed to\n> some kind of statement in the documentation making our view explicit.\n\nA similar statement could apply to the following files:\n\nDocumentation/technical/bitmap-format.txt\nDocumentation/technical/commit-graph-format.txt\nDocumentation/technical/http-protocol.txt\nDocumentation/technical/index-format.txt\nDocumentation/technical/long-running-process-protocol.txt\nDocumentation/technical/pack-format.txt\nDocumentation/technical/pack-protocol.txt\nDocumentation/technical/protocol-capabilities.txt\nDocumentation/technical/protocol-common.txt\nDocumentation/technical/protocol-v2.txt\n\nand perhaps others, including future additions.\n\nWould it be better to have a new file in\nDocumentation/technical/ that describes this view?\n\n-Stolee\n"},{"id":"387920","messageId":"CAPyFy2ALrWmH3kS5RgzQ+BH+ZUiboQi0-FPLqr1qgsvtntEZCw@mail.gmail.com","threadId":"52425","inReplyTo":"20191210205056.GA14079@coredump.intra.peff.net","subject":"Re: Could /Documentation/technical/commit-graph.txt be relicensed under a permissive license?","fromName":"Ed Maste","fromEmail":"emaste@freebsd.org","sentAt":"2019-12-10T17:18:51Z","receivedAt":"2019-12-10T21:05:22Z","isPatch":false,"sender":{"key":"emaste@freebsd.org","avatar":"https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/1034582?v=4"},"body":"On Tue, 10 Dec 2019 at 15:51, Jeff King wrote:\n>\n> That's my understanding as well. That said, I would not be opposed to\n> some kind of statement in the documentation making our view explicit.\n\nAs someone with a vested interest in permissively licensed tools that\ncan perform some basic git-compatible operations, such a statement\nwould be appreciated.\n"},{"id":"387922","messageId":"xmqqeexbrffe.fsf@gitster-ct.c.googlers.com","threadId":"52425","inReplyTo":"20191210205056.GA14079@coredump.intra.peff.net","subject":"Re: Could /Documentation/technical/commit-graph.txt be relicensed under a permissive license?","fromName":"Junio C Hamano","fromEmail":"gitster@pobox.com","sentAt":"2019-12-10T22:20:21Z","receivedAt":"2019-12-10T22:20:30Z","isPatch":false,"sender":{"key":"gitster@pobox.com","avatar":"https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/54884?v=4"},"body":"Jeff King writes:\n\n>> What _could_ be problematic is repeating the documentation directly\n>> in another permissive-licensed repository.\n>\n> That's my understanding as well. That said, I would not be opposed to\n> some kind of statement in the documentation making our view explicit.\n\nIn principle, I do not mind that either.\n\nBut quite honestly, I cannot say that I am (or \"want to be\") all\nthat sympathetic.\n\nIt takes me some effort to convince myself that it is worth for us\nto spend extra brain cycles even thinking about making such\nstatements, when those who would benefit the most from such an\neffort are the ones who call the software we work on \"contamination\"\nand proclaim that they cannot be bothered to spend the necessary\neffort to comply with the license as a waste of time.\n\nI'd be more receptive to those who are more friendly and\nrespectful---these things tend to be mutual.\n"},{"id":"387928","messageId":"8E1DF461-094C-4BBD-9F8A-575A45ED051B@mail.ru","threadId":"52425","inReplyTo":"xmqqeexbrffe.fsf@gitster-ct.c.googlers.com","subject":"Re: Could /Documentation/technical/commit-graph.txt be relicensed under a permissive license?","fromName":"KOLANICH","fromEmail":"kolan_n@mail.ru","sentAt":"2019-12-11T00:36:12Z","receivedAt":"2019-12-11T01:28:44Z","isPatch":false,"sender":{"key":"kolan_n@mail.ru","avatar":"https://gravatar.com/avatar/ea84c832f50cfa8754b0830df76fecd94b81ca05862851d60b7ed86ab28f0913?d=mp&s=160"},"body":"> spend the necessary effort to comply with the license as a waste of time.\n\nNecessity to treat so called free software with a technique invented to deal with closed-source proprietary software by companies enjoying their walled gardens and vigorously protecting their walls integrity in courts is a clear sign that there is something wrong with the software. I don't beleive that free open-source software should to work this way.\n"},{"id":"387939","messageId":"nycvar.QRO.7.76.6.1912111353400.46@tvgsbejvaqbjf.bet","threadId":"52425","inReplyTo":"8E1DF461-094C-4BBD-9F8A-575A45ED051B@mail.ru","subject":"Re: Could /Documentation/technical/commit-graph.txt be relicensed under a permissive license?","fromName":"Johannes Schindelin","fromEmail":"johannes.schindelin@gmx.de","sentAt":"2019-12-11T12:57:13Z","receivedAt":"2019-12-11T12:57:36Z","isPatch":false,"sender":{"key":"johannes.schindelin@gmx.de","avatar":"https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/127790?v=4"},"body":"Hi,\n\nOn Wed, 11 Dec 2019, KOLANICH wrote:\n\n> > spend the necessary effort to comply with the license as a waste of time.\n>\n> Necessity to treat so called free software with a technique invented to\n> deal with closed-source proprietary software by companies enjoying their\n> walled gardens and vigorously protecting their walls integrity in courts\n> is a clear sign that there is something wrong with the software. I don't\n> beleive that free open-source software should to work this way.\n\nSeeing as the obvious effect of such a hostile statement can only be less\ncooperation, in particular when replying directly to a mail where the Git\nmaintainer pointed out that there is hardly any benefit to the Git project\nin addressing complaints raised in a combative manner, I have to wonder\nwhether you realize that you just sabotaged the process where quite a few\npeople were ready to help you to get what you desire?\n\nPuzzled,\nJohannes\n"},{"id":"388069","messageId":"20191213005820.GD1334263@camp.crustytoothpaste.net","threadId":"52425","inReplyTo":"20191210205056.GA14079@coredump.intra.peff.net","subject":"Re: Could /Documentation/technical/commit-graph.txt be relicensed under a permissive license?","fromName":"brian m. carlson","fromEmail":"sandals@crustytoothpaste.net","sentAt":"2019-12-13T00:58:20Z","receivedAt":"2019-12-13T00:58:28Z","isPatch":false,"sender":{"key":"sandals@crustytoothpaste.net","avatar":"https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/497054?v=4"},"body":"On 2019-12-10 at 20:50:56, Jeff King wrote:\n> On Tue, Dec 10, 2019 at 03:38:35PM -0500, Derrick Stolee wrote:\n> \n> > (Insert \"I am not a lawyer\" warning.)\n> > \n> > I think this is the correct interpretation. One can interact with\n> > binary files as you want. In fact, there are likely privately\n> > licensed products that interact with Git's pack-files even though\n> > their format documentation is under GPL.\n> > \n> > What _could_ be problematic is repeating the documentation directly\n> > in another permissive-licensed repository.\n> \n> That's my understanding as well. That said, I would not be opposed to\n> some kind of statement in the documentation making our view explicit.\n\nThis is consistent with my interpretation as well. I view the\ndocumentation as a specification, and implementers are free to license\ntheir software as they see fit. They need only comply with the GPL if\nthey wish to copy, modify, or distribute the documentation itself (or\nother parts of Git).\n\nI see this exactly as the situation with RFCs (e.g., TCP): they are\ndocumentation licensed under non-free terms, but there are multiple\nindependent implementations of those RFCs under different terms (Linux,\nFreeBSD, and Windows, for example). The license terms of the RFCs apply\nonly to those documents, not the implementations.\n-- \nbrian m. carlson: Houston, Texas, US\nOpenPGP: https://keybase.io/bk2204\n"},{"id":"388218","messageId":"86y2ve48zs.fsf@gmail.com","threadId":"52425","inReplyTo":"70575b23-6adb-a29b-8df8-f9099f86eb0e@gmail.com","subject":"Re: Could /Documentation/technical/commit-graph.txt be relicensed under a permissive license?","fromName":"Jakub Narebski","fromEmail":"jnareb@gmail.com","sentAt":"2019-12-15T02:29:11Z","receivedAt":"2019-12-15T02:29:38Z","isPatch":false,"sender":{"key":"jnareb@gmail.com","avatar":"https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/2706?v=4"},"body":"Derrick Stolee writes:\n\n> On 12/10/2019 3:10 PM, Junio C Hamano wrote:\n>> KOLANICH writes:\n[...]\n>>> ... the license of git itself is GPL, so I am not\n>>> allowed to use these 2 files to create an own permissive-licensed\n>>> tool reading this file. \n>> \n>> It is a wrong conclusion, isn't it?\n>> \n>> GPL copyright protects the expression of the document, but the\n>> copyright protects only the expression, and does not protect the\n>> underlying format itself and the idea behind it. So I do not see a\n>> need to relicense the documentation text at all.\n>\n> (Insert \"I am not a lawyer\" warning.)\n>\n> I think this is the correct interpretation. One can interact with\n> binary files as you want. In fact, there are likely privately\n> licensed products that interact with Git's pack-files even though\n> their format documentation is under GPL.\n>\n> What _could_ be problematic is repeating the documentation directly\n> in another permissive-licensed repository.\n\nSidenote: I wonder if JGit, which is permissively-licensed (EDL,\ni.e. new-style BSD) pure-Java implementation of Git, makes use of commit\ngraph.\n\nI remember that pack bitmaps came to Git from JGit, where that feature\nwas first implemented.\n\nBest,\n--\nJakub Narębski\n"}]}