Many hyperlinks are disabled.
Use anonymous login
to enable hyperlinks.
Overview
| Comment: | Moved a sentence from the final paragraph up to the first in the "GPL vs BSD" section of the "Fossil vs. Git" doc. It was something of a non-sequitur where it was, and in its new position, it serves to bookend the discussion: we lay out our proposition at the top and come to a conclusion that we believe supports that proposition by the end. |
|---|---|
| Downloads: | Tarball | ZIP archive | SQL archive |
| Timelines: | family | ancestors | descendants | both | bsd-vs-gpl |
| Files: | files | file ages | folders |
| SHA3-256: |
cb1b007cd5c0aaf0712f29454cc1f603 |
| User & Date: | wyoung 2019-07-12 15:46:01 |
Context
|
2019-07-12
| ||
| 16:33 | Rewrote the opening paragraph to "GPL vs BSD" in "Fossil vs Git" doc to make it clear that we're not trying to persuade you to make our same choice. Also removed two paragraphs making a judgement about the nature of each license for the same reason. check-in: d48fdb41 user: wyoung tags: bsd-vs-gpl | |
| 15:46 | Moved a sentence from the final paragraph up to the first in the "GPL vs BSD" section of the "Fossil vs. Git" doc. It was something of a non-sequitur where it was, and in its new position, it serves to bookend the discussion: we lay out our proposition at the top and come to a conclusion that we believe supports that proposition by the end. check-in: cb1b007c user: wyoung tags: bsd-vs-gpl | |
| 15:41 | Removed a final sentence in a paragraph that basically just restated the paragraph in the new Fossil vs Git doc. check-in: f5a39a7e user: wyoung tags: bsd-vs-gpl | |
Changes
Changes to www/fossil-v-git.wiki.
281
282
283
284
285
286
287
288
289
290
291
292
293
294
295
...
326
327
328
329
330
331
332
333
334
335
336
337
338
339
340
341
342
343
344
345
|
One commentator has mused that Git records history according to the victors, whereas Fossil records history as it actually happened. <h3>2.9 GPL vs. BSD</h3> Git is covered by the GPL license, whereas Fossil is covered by [https://fossil-scm.org/fossil/file/COPYRIGHT-BSD2.txt|a two-clause BSD style license]. The key emphasis in the GPL is that if you distribute a binary built from a piece of GPL-licensed source code that you changed, you must also distribute the source code used to produce that binary. To enforce that, the GPL licenses have their famous [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Viral_license|viral provisions]. ................................................................................ We think this additional friction is not an entirely bad thing. We think it creates greater contributor community cohesion, because everyone who made it over the legal hurdle has made an active step to get into that community. More to the point here in this document, we think it affects the design and implementation of Fossil: its contributions come from a smaller, more cohesive group of people than with Git. Neither license affects the repository contents managed by either Fossil or Git. Nevertheless, one can see a more GPL-oriented world-view in Git and a more BSD-oriented world-view in Fossil. Git encourages anonymous contributions and siloed development, which are hallmarks of the GPL/bazaar approach to software, whereas Fossil encourages a more tightly collaborative, cliquish, cathedral-style approach more typical of BSD-licensed projects. <h2>3.0 Missing Features</h2> Most of the capabilities found in Git are also available in Fossil and the other way around. For example, both systems have local check-outs, remote repositories, push/pull/sync, bisect capabilities, and a "stash." Both systems store project history as a directed acyclic graph (DAG) |
|
>
>
>
|
|
|
|
|
|
281
282
283
284
285
286
287
288
289
290
291
292
293
294
295
296
297
298
...
329
330
331
332
333
334
335
336
337
338
339
340
341
342
343
344
345
346
347
348
|
One commentator has mused that Git records history according to the victors, whereas Fossil records history as it actually happened. <h3>2.9 GPL vs. BSD</h3> Git is covered by the GPL license, whereas Fossil is covered by [https://fossil-scm.org/fossil/file/COPYRIGHT-BSD2.txt|a two-clause BSD style license]. Neither license affects the repository contents managed by either Fossil or Git, but we do believe it affects the design and implementation of these two DVCSes, which may affect your choice when deciding which one you'd rather use. The key emphasis in the GPL is that if you distribute a binary built from a piece of GPL-licensed source code that you changed, you must also distribute the source code used to produce that binary. To enforce that, the GPL licenses have their famous [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Viral_license|viral provisions]. ................................................................................ We think this additional friction is not an entirely bad thing. We think it creates greater contributor community cohesion, because everyone who made it over the legal hurdle has made an active step to get into that community. More to the point here in this document, we think it affects the design and implementation of Fossil: its contributions come from a smaller, more cohesive group of people than with Git. These differences in world-view show up in the design and implementation of these two DVCSes. Git encourages anonymous contributions and siloed development, which are hallmarks of the GPL/bazaar approach to software, whereas Fossil encourages a more tightly collaborative cathedral-style approach more typical of BSD-licensed projects. <h2>3.0 Missing Features</h2> Most of the capabilities found in Git are also available in Fossil and the other way around. For example, both systems have local check-outs, remote repositories, push/pull/sync, bisect capabilities, and a "stash." Both systems store project history as a directed acyclic graph (DAG) |