Fossil SCM
Rewrote the "GPL vs. BSD" section in www/fossil-v-git.wiki. See forum post here for justification and discussion: https://fossil-scm.org/forum/forumpost/3239c30fff
Commit
68a7563ec7cee8f833982ebf92b344f8178ead847b6a1b2578efcfd4b15bd0e2
Parent
fd990128dd0dc00…
1 file changed
+35
-27
+35
-27
| --- www/fossil-v-git.wiki | ||
| +++ www/fossil-v-git.wiki | ||
| @@ -268,40 +268,48 @@ | ||
| 268 | 268 | One commentator has mused that Git records history according to |
| 269 | 269 | the victors, whereas Fossil records history as it actually happened. |
| 270 | 270 | |
| 271 | 271 | <h3>2.9 GPL vs. BSD</h3> |
| 272 | 272 | |
| 273 | -Git is covered by the GPL license whereas Fossil is covered by | |
| 273 | +Git is covered by the GPL license, whereas Fossil is covered by | |
| 274 | 274 | [https://fossil-scm.org/fossil/file/COPYRIGHT-BSD2.txt|a two-clause BSD |
| 275 | 275 | style license]. |
| 276 | 276 | |
| 277 | -Consider the difference between GPL and BSD licenses: GPL is designed | |
| 278 | -to make writing easier at the expense of making reading harder. BSD is | |
| 279 | -designed to make reading easier at the expense of making writing harder. | |
| 280 | - | |
| 281 | -To a first approximation, the GPL license grants the right to read | |
| 282 | -source code to anyone who promises to give back enhancements. In other | |
| 283 | -words, the act of reading GPL source code (a prerequiste for making changes) | |
| 284 | -implies acceptance of the license which requires updates to be contributed | |
| 285 | -back under the same license. (The details are more complex, but the | |
| 286 | -foregoing captures the essence of the idea.) A big advantage of the GPL | |
| 287 | -is that anybody can contribute to the code without having to sign additional | |
| 288 | -legal documentation because they have implied their acceptance of the GPL | |
| 289 | -license by the very act of reading the source code. This means that a GPL | |
| 290 | -project can legally accept anonymous and drive-by patches. | |
| 291 | - | |
| 292 | -The BSD licenses, on the other hand, make reading much easier than the GPL, | |
| 293 | -because the reader need not surrender proprietary interest | |
| 294 | -in their own enhancements. On the flip side, BSD and similarly licensed | |
| 295 | -projects must obtain legal affidavits from authors before | |
| 296 | -new content can be added into the project. Anonymous and drive-by | |
| 297 | -patches cannot be accepted. This makes signing up new contributors for | |
| 298 | -BSD licensed projects harder. | |
| 299 | - | |
| 300 | -The licenses on the implementations of Git and Fossil only apply to the | |
| 301 | -implementations themselves, not to the projects which the systems store. | |
| 302 | -Nevertheless, one can see a more GPL-oriented world-view in Git and a | |
| 277 | +The key emphasis in the GPL is that if you distribute a binary built from | |
| 278 | +a version of a piece of GPL-licensed source code that you changed, you | |
| 279 | +must also distribute the source code used to produce that binary. To | |
| 280 | +enforce that, the GPL licenses have their famous | |
| 281 | +[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Viral_license|viral provisions]. | |
| 282 | + | |
| 283 | +We can summarize the key emphasis of the BSD style licenses as "Please | |
| 284 | +don't sue us." A BSD style license places very little restriction on | |
| 285 | +what you are allowed to do with the source code or the binaries produced | |
| 286 | +from that source code. | |
| 287 | + | |
| 288 | +This difference in outlook allows a GPL-based project to do without a | |
| 289 | +[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contributor_License_Agreement|constributor | |
| 290 | +license agreement] (CLA) because by the very act of distributing | |
| 291 | +binaries, you are bound to also distribute the source under a compatible | |
| 292 | +license. There are GPL-based projects that do require a CLA, but this is | |
| 293 | +typically done in order to allow a corporation to "own" the | |
| 294 | +contributions so that it can legally relicense them to those who do not | |
| 295 | +wish to be subject to the GPL, usually for a hefty fee. A CLA is not | |
| 296 | +necessary for the legal integrity of a GPL-based | |
| 297 | +[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_and_open-source_software|FOSS] | |
| 298 | +project, so it's often dispensed with. | |
| 299 | + | |
| 300 | +Contrast a BSD-style project, where contributions are not automatically | |
| 301 | +relicensed merely by being distributed with the preexisting BSD code. | |
| 302 | +Such projects often require a CLA even when there is no corporate | |
| 303 | +overlord or commercial-use relicensing option. It is one way to ensure | |
| 304 | +that all contributions are compatibly licensed with the existing body of | |
| 305 | +code. It's a way to add a "no takebacks" clause to the basic BSD | |
| 306 | +license. The greater necesity for having a CLA in a BSD-licensed project | |
| 307 | +makes signing up new contributors harder. | |
| 308 | + | |
| 309 | +Neither license affects the repository contents managed by either Fossil | |
| 310 | +or Git. Nevertheless, one can see a more GPL-oriented world-view in Git and a | |
| 303 | 311 | more BSD-oriented world-view in Fossil. Git encourages anonymous contributions |
| 304 | 312 | and siloed development, which are hallmarks of the GPL/bazaar approach to |
| 305 | 313 | software, whereas Fossil encourages a more tightly collaborative, |
| 306 | 314 | cliquish, cathedral-style approach more typical of BSD-licensed projects. |
| 307 | 315 | |
| 308 | 316 |
| --- www/fossil-v-git.wiki | |
| +++ www/fossil-v-git.wiki | |
| @@ -268,40 +268,48 @@ | |
| 268 | One commentator has mused that Git records history according to |
| 269 | the victors, whereas Fossil records history as it actually happened. |
| 270 | |
| 271 | <h3>2.9 GPL vs. BSD</h3> |
| 272 | |
| 273 | Git is covered by the GPL license whereas Fossil is covered by |
| 274 | [https://fossil-scm.org/fossil/file/COPYRIGHT-BSD2.txt|a two-clause BSD |
| 275 | style license]. |
| 276 | |
| 277 | Consider the difference between GPL and BSD licenses: GPL is designed |
| 278 | to make writing easier at the expense of making reading harder. BSD is |
| 279 | designed to make reading easier at the expense of making writing harder. |
| 280 | |
| 281 | To a first approximation, the GPL license grants the right to read |
| 282 | source code to anyone who promises to give back enhancements. In other |
| 283 | words, the act of reading GPL source code (a prerequiste for making changes) |
| 284 | implies acceptance of the license which requires updates to be contributed |
| 285 | back under the same license. (The details are more complex, but the |
| 286 | foregoing captures the essence of the idea.) A big advantage of the GPL |
| 287 | is that anybody can contribute to the code without having to sign additional |
| 288 | legal documentation because they have implied their acceptance of the GPL |
| 289 | license by the very act of reading the source code. This means that a GPL |
| 290 | project can legally accept anonymous and drive-by patches. |
| 291 | |
| 292 | The BSD licenses, on the other hand, make reading much easier than the GPL, |
| 293 | because the reader need not surrender proprietary interest |
| 294 | in their own enhancements. On the flip side, BSD and similarly licensed |
| 295 | projects must obtain legal affidavits from authors before |
| 296 | new content can be added into the project. Anonymous and drive-by |
| 297 | patches cannot be accepted. This makes signing up new contributors for |
| 298 | BSD licensed projects harder. |
| 299 | |
| 300 | The licenses on the implementations of Git and Fossil only apply to the |
| 301 | implementations themselves, not to the projects which the systems store. |
| 302 | Nevertheless, one can see a more GPL-oriented world-view in Git and a |
| 303 | more BSD-oriented world-view in Fossil. Git encourages anonymous contributions |
| 304 | and siloed development, which are hallmarks of the GPL/bazaar approach to |
| 305 | software, whereas Fossil encourages a more tightly collaborative, |
| 306 | cliquish, cathedral-style approach more typical of BSD-licensed projects. |
| 307 | |
| 308 |
| --- www/fossil-v-git.wiki | |
| +++ www/fossil-v-git.wiki | |
| @@ -268,40 +268,48 @@ | |
| 268 | One commentator has mused that Git records history according to |
| 269 | the victors, whereas Fossil records history as it actually happened. |
| 270 | |
| 271 | <h3>2.9 GPL vs. BSD</h3> |
| 272 | |
| 273 | Git is covered by the GPL license, whereas Fossil is covered by |
| 274 | [https://fossil-scm.org/fossil/file/COPYRIGHT-BSD2.txt|a two-clause BSD |
| 275 | style license]. |
| 276 | |
| 277 | The key emphasis in the GPL is that if you distribute a binary built from |
| 278 | a version of a piece of GPL-licensed source code that you changed, you |
| 279 | must also distribute the source code used to produce that binary. To |
| 280 | enforce that, the GPL licenses have their famous |
| 281 | [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Viral_license|viral provisions]. |
| 282 | |
| 283 | We can summarize the key emphasis of the BSD style licenses as "Please |
| 284 | don't sue us." A BSD style license places very little restriction on |
| 285 | what you are allowed to do with the source code or the binaries produced |
| 286 | from that source code. |
| 287 | |
| 288 | This difference in outlook allows a GPL-based project to do without a |
| 289 | [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contributor_License_Agreement|constributor |
| 290 | license agreement] (CLA) because by the very act of distributing |
| 291 | binaries, you are bound to also distribute the source under a compatible |
| 292 | license. There are GPL-based projects that do require a CLA, but this is |
| 293 | typically done in order to allow a corporation to "own" the |
| 294 | contributions so that it can legally relicense them to those who do not |
| 295 | wish to be subject to the GPL, usually for a hefty fee. A CLA is not |
| 296 | necessary for the legal integrity of a GPL-based |
| 297 | [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_and_open-source_software|FOSS] |
| 298 | project, so it's often dispensed with. |
| 299 | |
| 300 | Contrast a BSD-style project, where contributions are not automatically |
| 301 | relicensed merely by being distributed with the preexisting BSD code. |
| 302 | Such projects often require a CLA even when there is no corporate |
| 303 | overlord or commercial-use relicensing option. It is one way to ensure |
| 304 | that all contributions are compatibly licensed with the existing body of |
| 305 | code. It's a way to add a "no takebacks" clause to the basic BSD |
| 306 | license. The greater necesity for having a CLA in a BSD-licensed project |
| 307 | makes signing up new contributors harder. |
| 308 | |
| 309 | Neither license affects the repository contents managed by either Fossil |
| 310 | or Git. Nevertheless, one can see a more GPL-oriented world-view in Git and a |
| 311 | more BSD-oriented world-view in Fossil. Git encourages anonymous contributions |
| 312 | and siloed development, which are hallmarks of the GPL/bazaar approach to |
| 313 | software, whereas Fossil encourages a more tightly collaborative, |
| 314 | cliquish, cathedral-style approach more typical of BSD-licensed projects. |
| 315 | |
| 316 |