Fossil

Check-in [d48fdb41]
Login

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

Overview
Comment: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.
Downloads: Tarball | ZIP archive | SQL archive
Timelines: family | ancestors | descendants | both | bsd-vs-gpl
Files: files | file ages | folders
SHA3-256: d48fdb41fb80fa8aa5e2cb4b43f2bb961c5bfea1fc5a7e55ac52a23c86dd9468
User & Date: wyoung 2019-07-12 16:33:49
Context
2019-07-12
16:38
Reduced repeition of the "deisgn and implementation" bits of "Fossil vs Git" in the new "GPL vs BSD" material. check-in: 4f293ddf user: wyoung tags: bsd-vs-gpl
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
Changes
Hide Diffs Unified Diffs Ignore Whitespace Patch

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

281
282
283
284
285
286
287

288
289

290
291
292
293
294
295
296
297
298
299
300
301
302
303
304
305
306
307
308
309
310
311
...
324
325
326
327
328
329
330
331
332
333
334
335
336
337
338
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 can summarize the key emphasis of the BSD style licenses as "Please
don't sue us." A BSD style license places very little restriction on
what you are allowed to do with the source code or the binaries produced
from that source code.

This difference in outlook allows a GPL-based 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]
................................................................................
also drives off those unable to accept the CLA's restrictions on their
rights, which are otherwise quite minimal under a BSD-style license. The
GPL requires much the same sort of relinquishment of rights without this
up-front gatekeeping.

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







>
|
<
>
|
|

<
<
<
<
<
<
<
<
<
<
<
|







 







|







281
282
283
284
285
286
287
288
289

290
291
292
293











294
295
296
297
298
299
300
301
...
314
315
316
317
318
319
320
321
322
323
324
325
326
327
328
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]. 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]
................................................................................
also drives off those unable to accept the CLA's restrictions on their
rights, which are otherwise quite minimal under a BSD-style license. The
GPL requires much the same sort of relinquishment of rights without this
up-front gatekeeping.

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 affirmative 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