From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Andrew Sayers Subject: Licensing a file format (was Re: SVN Branch Description Format) Date: Mon, 19 Mar 2012 01:28:52 +0000 Message-ID: <4F668BD4.70808@pileofstuff.org> References: <4F5C85A3.4080806@pileofstuff.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: Git Mailing List , Sam Vilain , Stephen Bash , Nathan Gray , Jeff King , Sverre Rabbelier , Dmitry Ivankov , Ramkumar Ramachandra , David Barr , Jonathan Nieder , semen.vadishev@tmatesoft.com X-From: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Mon Mar 19 02:29:06 2012 Return-path: Envelope-to: gcvg-git-2@plane.gmane.org Received: from vger.kernel.org ([209.132.180.67]) by plane.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1S9RPF-0006AL-7o for gcvg-git-2@plane.gmane.org; Mon, 19 Mar 2012 02:29:05 +0100 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1757339Ab2CSB25 (ORCPT ); Sun, 18 Mar 2012 21:28:57 -0400 Received: from mtaout02-winn.ispmail.ntl.com ([81.103.221.48]:4130 "EHLO mtaout02-winn.ispmail.ntl.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1756673Ab2CSB24 (ORCPT ); Sun, 18 Mar 2012 21:28:56 -0400 Received: from aamtaout01-winn.ispmail.ntl.com ([81.103.221.35]) by mtaout02-winn.ispmail.ntl.com (InterMail vM.7.08.04.00 201-2186-134-20080326) with ESMTP id <20120319012854.WRNT20752.mtaout02-winn.ispmail.ntl.com@aamtaout01-winn.ispmail.ntl.com>; Mon, 19 Mar 2012 01:28:54 +0000 Received: from [192.168.0.2] (really [94.170.150.126]) by aamtaout01-winn.ispmail.ntl.com (InterMail vG.3.00.04.00 201-2196-133-20080908) with ESMTP id <20120319012854.QFCA10211.aamtaout01-winn.ispmail.ntl.com@[192.168.0.2]>; Mon, 19 Mar 2012 01:28:54 +0000 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux x86_64; en-US; rv:1.9.2.27) Gecko/20120216 Thunderbird/3.1.19 In-Reply-To: <4F5C85A3.4080806@pileofstuff.org> X-Cloudmark-Analysis: v=1.1 cv=JvdXmxIgLJv2/GthKqHpGJEEHukvLcvELVXUanXFreg= c=1 sm=0 a=pFZ1vDXyzkQA:10 a=Hx-evdmYQ-YA:10 a=u4BGzq-dJbcA:10 a=8nJEP1OIZ-IA:10 a=l_N1UNUtkD0-H8DcrHYA:9 a=PUoBO-0LQ-BK9Z9ZlGYA:7 a=wPNLvfGTeEIA:10 a=HpAAvcLHHh0Zw7uRqdWCyQ==:117 Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Archived-At: (CCing Semen Vadishev as I'd like to know if the SubGit project has any opinion about this) If you haven't been following the thread - this is a discussion of a new format for describing SVN branching/merging/tagging behaviour. Among other things, this would let people plug different SVN exporters into different Git importers. I'd like advice/opinions from the community about licensing the specification and reference implementation for this format, because it seems like establishing an open standard is a bit different to promoting open source. I've always thought of copyleft as the tool I use to promote sharing, but standards get more sharing by abandoning copyleft and relying on the network effect - forking a standard makes your product less valuable, unless you're not allowed to use the standard or you have so much market share you don't have to care about standards in the first place. I'm planning to release the spec under a Creative Commons Attribution-NoDerivs license (i.e. commercial use allowed, changes have to go through me) and the reference implementation under an MIT license (i.e. blatant theft of the exact recommended behaviour is encouraged). This should minimise the barriers for people wanting to implement the format as specified, and maximise the barriers for people wanting to subvert the format. The downside is that it makes life difficult for everyone if I'm hit by a bus, and makes me less inclined to put some of the more complex algorithms into the non-copyleft reference implementation. Just to be clear, the format is one of three parts involved in getting SVN branches/merges/tags into git. I plan to release an SVN exporter and git importer under the GPL, but expect to make a special case for the format. So the big question - would you be more inclined to use/contribute to the SVN Branch Description Format if it had a different license? - Andrew