Could /Documentation/technical/commit-graph.txt be relicensed under a permissive license?

git@vger.kernel.org mailing list mirror (one of many)
 help / color / mirror / code / Atom feed

* Could /Documentation/technical/commit-graph.txt be relicensed under a permissive license?
@ 2019-12-10 19:31 KOLANICH
  2019-12-10 20:10 ` Junio C Hamano
  0 siblings, 1 reply; 11+ messages in thread
From: KOLANICH @ 2019-12-10 19:31 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: git; +Cc: Junio Hamano, Derrick Stolee, Jeff King, Elijah Newren

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.

Could the doc file be relicensed under a permissive license?

^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 11+ messages in thread

* Re: Could /Documentation/technical/commit-graph.txt be relicensed under a permissive license?
  2019-12-10 19:31 Could /Documentation/technical/commit-graph.txt be relicensed under a permissive license? KOLANICH
@ 2019-12-10 20:10 ` Junio C Hamano
  2019-12-10 20:38   ` Derrick Stolee
  0 siblings, 1 reply; 11+ messages in thread
From: Junio C Hamano @ 2019-12-10 20:10 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: KOLANICH; +Cc: git, Derrick Stolee, Jeff King, Elijah Newren

KOLANICH <kolan_n@mail.ru> writes:

> ... 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.

^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 11+ messages in thread

* Re: Could /Documentation/technical/commit-graph.txt be relicensed under a permissive license?
  2019-12-10 20:10 ` Junio C Hamano
@ 2019-12-10 20:38   ` Derrick Stolee
  2019-12-10 20:50     ` Jeff King
  2019-12-15  2:29     ` Jakub Narebski
  0 siblings, 2 replies; 11+ messages in thread
From: Derrick Stolee @ 2019-12-10 20:38 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Junio C Hamano, KOLANICH; +Cc: git, Derrick Stolee, Jeff King, Elijah Newren

On 12/10/2019 3:10 PM, Junio C Hamano wrote:
> KOLANICH <kolan_n@mail.ru> 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


^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 11+ messages in thread

* Re: Could /Documentation/technical/commit-graph.txt be relicensed under a permissive license?
  2019-12-10 20:38   ` Derrick Stolee
@ 2019-12-10 20:50     ` Jeff King
  2019-12-10 17:18       ` Ed Maste
                         ` (3 more replies)
  2019-12-15  2:29     ` Jakub Narebski
  1 sibling, 4 replies; 11+ messages in thread
From: Jeff King @ 2019-12-10 20:50 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Derrick Stolee
  Cc: Junio C Hamano, KOLANICH, git, Derrick Stolee, Elijah Newren

On Tue, Dec 10, 2019 at 03:38:35PM -0500, Derrick Stolee wrote:

> On 12/10/2019 3:10 PM, Junio C Hamano wrote:
> > KOLANICH <kolan_n@mail.ru> writes:
> 
> I don't appear to have the original message? Perhaps it was
> directly addressed to Junio?

It made it to me via the list, too.

> > 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.

That's my understanding as well. That said, I would not be opposed to
some kind of statement in the documentation making our view explicit.

-Peff

^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 11+ messages in thread

* Re: Could /Documentation/technical/commit-graph.txt be relicensed under a permissive license?
  2019-12-10 20:50     ` Jeff King
@ 2019-12-10 17:18       ` Ed Maste
  2019-12-10 20:58       ` Derrick Stolee
                         ` (2 subsequent siblings)
  3 siblings, 0 replies; 11+ messages in thread
From: Ed Maste @ 2019-12-10 17:18 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Jeff King
  Cc: Derrick Stolee, Junio C Hamano, KOLANICH, git, Derrick Stolee,
	Elijah Newren

On Tue, 10 Dec 2019 at 15:51, Jeff King <peff@peff.net> wrote:
>
> That's my understanding as well. That said, I would not be opposed to
> some kind of statement in the documentation making our view explicit.

As someone with a vested interest in permissively licensed tools that
can perform some basic git-compatible operations, such a statement
would be appreciated.

^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 11+ messages in thread

* Re: Could /Documentation/technical/commit-graph.txt be relicensed under a permissive license?
  2019-12-10 20:50     ` Jeff King
  2019-12-10 17:18       ` Ed Maste
@ 2019-12-10 20:58       ` Derrick Stolee
  2019-12-10 22:20       ` Junio C Hamano
  2019-12-13  0:58       ` brian m. carlson
  3 siblings, 0 replies; 11+ messages in thread
From: Derrick Stolee @ 2019-12-10 20:58 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Jeff King; +Cc: Junio C Hamano, KOLANICH, git, Derrick Stolee, Elijah Newren

On 12/10/2019 3:50 PM, Jeff King wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 10, 2019 at 03:38:35PM -0500, Derrick Stolee wrote:
> 
>> On 12/10/2019 3:10 PM, Junio C Hamano wrote:
>>> KOLANICH <kolan_n@mail.ru> writes:
>>
>> I don't appear to have the original message? Perhaps it was
>> directly addressed to Junio?
> 
> It made it to me via the list, too.

Hm... I have had messages from the list be delayed somehow by Gmail.

>>> 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.
> 
> That's my understanding as well. That said, I would not be opposed to
> some kind of statement in the documentation making our view explicit.

A similar statement could apply to the following files:

Documentation/technical/bitmap-format.txt
Documentation/technical/commit-graph-format.txt
Documentation/technical/http-protocol.txt
Documentation/technical/index-format.txt
Documentation/technical/long-running-process-protocol.txt
Documentation/technical/pack-format.txt
Documentation/technical/pack-protocol.txt
Documentation/technical/protocol-capabilities.txt
Documentation/technical/protocol-common.txt
Documentation/technical/protocol-v2.txt

and perhaps others, including future additions.

Would it be better to have a new file in
Documentation/technical/ that describes this view?

-Stolee

^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 11+ messages in thread

* Re: Could /Documentation/technical/commit-graph.txt be relicensed under a permissive license?
  2019-12-10 20:50     ` Jeff King
  2019-12-10 17:18       ` Ed Maste
  2019-12-10 20:58       ` Derrick Stolee
@ 2019-12-10 22:20       ` Junio C Hamano
  2019-12-11  0:36         ` KOLANICH
  2019-12-13  0:58       ` brian m. carlson
  3 siblings, 1 reply; 11+ messages in thread
From: Junio C Hamano @ 2019-12-10 22:20 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Jeff King; +Cc: Derrick Stolee, KOLANICH, git, Derrick Stolee, Elijah Newren

Jeff King <peff@peff.net> writes:

>> What _could_ be problematic is repeating the documentation directly
>> in another permissive-licensed repository.
>
> That's my understanding as well. That said, I would not be opposed to
> some kind of statement in the documentation making our view explicit.

In principle, I do not mind that either.

But quite honestly, I cannot say that I am (or "want to be") all
that sympathetic.

It takes me some effort to convince myself that it is worth for us
to spend extra brain cycles even thinking about making such
statements, when those who would benefit the most from such an
effort are the ones who call the software we work on "contamination"
and proclaim that they cannot be bothered to spend the necessary
effort to comply with the license as a waste of time.

I'd be more receptive to those who are more friendly and
respectful---these things tend to be mutual.

^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 11+ messages in thread

* Re: Could /Documentation/technical/commit-graph.txt be relicensed under a permissive license?
  2019-12-10 22:20       ` Junio C Hamano
@ 2019-12-11  0:36         ` KOLANICH
  2019-12-11 12:57           ` Johannes Schindelin
  0 siblings, 1 reply; 11+ messages in thread
From: KOLANICH @ 2019-12-11  0:36 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Junio C Hamano; +Cc: git

> spend the necessary effort to comply with the license as a waste of time.

Necessity 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.

^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 11+ messages in thread

* Re: Could /Documentation/technical/commit-graph.txt be relicensed under a permissive license?
  2019-12-11  0:36         ` KOLANICH
@ 2019-12-11 12:57           ` Johannes Schindelin
  0 siblings, 0 replies; 11+ messages in thread
From: Johannes Schindelin @ 2019-12-11 12:57 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: KOLANICH; +Cc: Junio C Hamano, git

Hi,

On Wed, 11 Dec 2019, KOLANICH wrote:

> > spend the necessary effort to comply with the license as a waste of time.
>
> Necessity 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.

Seeing as the obvious effect of such a hostile statement can only be less
cooperation, in particular when replying directly to a mail where the Git
maintainer pointed out that there is hardly any benefit to the Git project
in addressing complaints raised in a combative manner, I have to wonder
whether you realize that you just sabotaged the process where quite a few
people were ready to help you to get what you desire?

Puzzled,
Johannes

^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 11+ messages in thread

* Re: Could /Documentation/technical/commit-graph.txt be relicensed under a permissive license?
  2019-12-10 20:50     ` Jeff King
                         ` (2 preceding siblings ...)
  2019-12-10 22:20       ` Junio C Hamano
@ 2019-12-13  0:58       ` brian m. carlson
  3 siblings, 0 replies; 11+ messages in thread
From: brian m. carlson @ 2019-12-13  0:58 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Jeff King
  Cc: Derrick Stolee, Junio C Hamano, KOLANICH, git, Derrick Stolee,
	Elijah Newren

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1417 bytes --]

On 2019-12-10 at 20:50:56, Jeff King wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 10, 2019 at 03:38:35PM -0500, Derrick Stolee wrote:
> 
> > (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.
> 
> That's my understanding as well. That said, I would not be opposed to
> some kind of statement in the documentation making our view explicit.

This is consistent with my interpretation as well.  I view the
documentation as a specification, and implementers are free to license
their software as they see fit.  They need only comply with the GPL if
they wish to copy, modify, or distribute the documentation itself (or
other parts of Git).

I see this exactly as the situation with RFCs (e.g., TCP): they are
documentation licensed under non-free terms, but there are multiple
independent implementations of those RFCs under different terms (Linux,
FreeBSD, and Windows, for example).  The license terms of the RFCs apply
only to those documents, not the implementations.
-- 
brian m. carlson: Houston, Texas, US
OpenPGP: https://keybase.io/bk2204

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 868 bytes --]

^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 11+ messages in thread

* Re: Could /Documentation/technical/commit-graph.txt be relicensed under a permissive license?
  2019-12-10 20:38   ` Derrick Stolee
  2019-12-10 20:50     ` Jeff King
@ 2019-12-15  2:29     ` Jakub Narebski
  1 sibling, 0 replies; 11+ messages in thread
From: Jakub Narebski @ 2019-12-15  2:29 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Derrick Stolee
  Cc: Junio C Hamano, KOLANICH, git, Derrick Stolee, Jeff King,
	Elijah Newren

Derrick Stolee <stolee@gmail.com> writes:

> On 12/10/2019 3:10 PM, Junio C Hamano wrote:
>> KOLANICH <kolan_n@mail.ru> writes:
[...]
>>> ... 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.

Sidenote: I wonder if JGit, which is permissively-licensed (EDL,
i.e. new-style BSD) pure-Java implementation of Git, makes use of commit
graph.

I remember that pack bitmaps came to Git from JGit, where that feature
was first implemented.

Best,
--
Jakub Narębski

^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 11+ messages in thread

end of thread, other threads:[~2019-12-15  2:29 UTC | newest]

Thread overview: 11+ messages (download: mbox.gz / follow: Atom feed)
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2019-12-10 19:31 Could /Documentation/technical/commit-graph.txt be relicensed under a permissive license? KOLANICH
2019-12-10 20:10 ` Junio C Hamano
2019-12-10 20:38   ` Derrick Stolee
2019-12-10 20:50     ` Jeff King
2019-12-10 17:18       ` Ed Maste
2019-12-10 20:58       ` Derrick Stolee
2019-12-10 22:20       ` Junio C Hamano
2019-12-11  0:36         ` KOLANICH
2019-12-11 12:57           ` Johannes Schindelin
2019-12-13  0:58       ` brian m. carlson
2019-12-15  2:29     ` Jakub Narebski

Code repositories for project(s) associated with this public inbox

	https://80x24.org/mirrors/git.git

This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for read-only IMAP folder(s) and NNTP newsgroup(s).