>What _could_ be problematic is repeating the documentation directly >in another permissive-licensed repository. > One can interact with binary files as you want. Certainly. The problem is not with interacting to binary. The problem is the source of knowlege for a third-party impl. If I took Git source code and directly reused it, my code surely would have been infected. If I took git source code and rewrite it function by function (by reading function, understanding what it does, then recreating the function from scratch trying to keep the behavior exactly the same) ... the resulting code will still be based on git source code and so infected. The same if I rewrite it function-by function to another language. And we consider docs and code to be languages (and in fact I wanna rewrite the docs in a formal language and then transpile it to the source code). So, if I based my impl on any source (including docs) under GPL, I cannot be sure it is not infected. So probably only clean-room or black-box RE can give any sensible guarantee in the case the content is under a viral/proprietary license. But I have no time to waste on CR/BB REing open source software, though it may completely make sense. >In fact, there are likely privately licensed products that interact with Git's pack-files even though their format documentation is under GPL. Businesses have lawers working for them full time and some money to spend on lawsuits. It is incorrect to compare most of private persons like me to businesses.
