Fossil

is not a factor.

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].

Consider the difference between GPL and BSD licenses:  GPL is designed
to make writing easier at the expense of making reading harder.  BSD is
designed to make reading easier at the expense of making writing harder.



To a first approximation, the GPL license grants the right to read
source code to anyone who promises to give back enhancements.  In other
words, the act of reading GPL source code (a prerequiste for making changes)
implies acceptance of the license which requires updates to be contributed
back under the same license.  (The details are more complex, but the
foregoing captures the essence of the idea.)  A big advantage of the GPL
is that anybody can contribute to the code without having to sign additional
legal documentation because they have implied their acceptance of the GPL
license by the very act of reading the source code.  This means that a GPL
project can legally accept anonymous and drive-by patches.





The BSD licenses, on the other hand, make reading much easier than the GPL,
because the reader need not surrender proprietary interest
in their own enhancements.  On the flip side, BSD and similarly licensed
projects must obtain legal affidavits from authors before
new content can be added into the project.  Anonymous and drive-by










patches cannot be accepted.  This makes signing up new contributors for
BSD licensed projects harder.

The licenses on the implementations of Git and Fossil only apply to the
implementations themselves, not to the projects which the systems store.

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>

is not a factor.

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 version of 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
typically done in order to allow a corporation to "own" the
contributions so that it can legally relicense them to those who do not
wish to be subject to the GPL, usually for a hefty fee. A CLA is not
necessary for the legal integrity of a GPL-based
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_and_open-source_software|FOSS]
project, so it's often dispensed with.

Contrast a BSD-style project, where contributions are not automatically
relicensed merely by being distributed with the preexisting BSD code.
Such projects often require a CLA even when there is no corporate
overlord or commercial-use relicensing option. It is one way to ensure
that all contributions are compatibly licensed with the existing body of
code. It's a way to add a "no takebacks" clause to the basic BSD
license. The greater necesity for having a CLA in a BSD-licensed project
makes signing up new contributors harder.




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>