Fossil

Check-in [bd0b86e9]
Login

Many hyperlinks are disabled.
Use anonymous login to enable hyperlinks.

Overview
Comment:Typo fix
Downloads: Tarball | ZIP archive | SQL archive
Timelines: family | ancestors | descendants | both | bsd-vs-gpl
Files: files | file ages | folders
SHA3-256: bd0b86e97d5c883633282a6a01e6dcc4b9ecb7a4ce4e7d27ed7bdf40e29b19eb
User & Date: wyoung 2019-07-12 16:43:00
Context
2019-07-14
11:02
Moved the "BSD vs GPL" section up in the fossil-v-git doc and made it a sub-section of a new "Linux vs SQLite" section which has two other sub-sections: "Development Organization," which contains an expanded version of what used to be called "Cathedral vs. Bazaar" and "Scale," which contains what is left of the prior version's "Linux vs. SQLite" section. These are sub-sections of a common parent because they were mutually repetitive, and they're all aspects of the "Linux vs. SQLite" comparison, not separate things at all. check-in: bab2656d user: wyoung tags: bsd-vs-gpl
2019-07-12
16:43
Typo fix check-in: bd0b86e9 user: wyoung tags: bsd-vs-gpl
16:40
Added "and use" to fossil-v-git: the license has effects that extend beyond design and implementation. check-in: 2cc9036e user: wyoung tags: bsd-vs-gpl
Changes
Hide Diffs Unified Diffs Ignore Whitespace Patch

Changes to www/fossil-v-git.wiki.

288
289
290
291
292
293
294
295
296
297
298
299
300
301
302
style license]. It is not our purpose here to try to persuade you to make
the same choice of license that we did. Neither license affects the
managed repository contents. However, we do believe the choice of
license affected the design and implementation of these two DVCSes,
which may affect your choice when deciding which one you'd rather use.

The GPL allows a project to do without a
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contributor_License_Agreement|constributor
license agreement] (CLA) because by the very act of distributing
binaries, you are bound to also distribute the source under a compatible
license. There are GPL-based projects that do require a CLA, but this is
usually done to further commercial interests rather than to maintain
the legal integrity of the
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_and_open-source_software|FOSS]
project itself.







|







288
289
290
291
292
293
294
295
296
297
298
299
300
301
302
style license]. It is not our purpose here to try to persuade you to make
the same choice of license that we did. Neither license affects the
managed repository contents. However, we do believe the choice of
license affected the design and implementation of these two DVCSes,
which may affect your choice when deciding which one you'd rather use.

The GPL allows a project to do without a
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contributor_License_Agreement|contributor
license agreement] (CLA) because by the very act of distributing
binaries, you are bound to also distribute the source under a compatible
license. There are GPL-based projects that do require a CLA, but this is
usually done to further commercial interests rather than to maintain
the legal integrity of the
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_and_open-source_software|FOSS]
project itself.