KOLANICH <kolan_n@xxxxxxx> 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.
