Fossil SCM
Distilled the points about "GPL + CLA = commrecial interests" to only the bits essential to the "Fossil vs Git" argument.
Commit
ba1fa73b8708f51702c848fab12fe98e7b3471adcef2a1a946292dc3404e10ec
Parent
840f2b39297dce1…
1 file changed
+5
-10
+5
-10
| --- www/fossil-v-git.wiki | ||
| +++ www/fossil-v-git.wiki | ||
| @@ -155,11 +155,12 @@ | ||
| 155 | 155 | Fossil was specifically designed to support the development of SQLite. |
| 156 | 156 | |
| 157 | 157 | SQLite is much more widely deployed than the Linux kernel, but for |
| 158 | 158 | Linux-based systems, the kernel is the more fundamental component. |
| 159 | 159 | Although both projects must rank high on any objective list of "most |
| 160 | -important FOSS projects," the two projects are almost entirely unlike | |
| 160 | +important [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_and_open-source_software|FOSS] | |
| 161 | +projects," the two projects are almost entirely unlike | |
| 161 | 162 | one another, and this shows up in the design choices of the tools |
| 162 | 163 | created to support them. |
| 163 | 164 | |
| 164 | 165 | The Linux kernel uses a bazaar-style development model. There are thousands and |
| 165 | 166 | thousands of contributors, most of whom do not know each others names. |
| @@ -300,20 +301,14 @@ | ||
| 300 | 301 | This difference in outlook allows a GPL-based project to do without a |
| 301 | 302 | [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contributor_License_Agreement|constributor |
| 302 | 303 | license agreement] (CLA) because by the very act of distributing |
| 303 | 304 | binaries, you are bound to also distribute the source under a compatible |
| 304 | 305 | license. There are GPL-based projects that do require a CLA, but this is |
| 305 | -typically done in order to allow a corporation to "own" the | |
| 306 | -contributions so that it can legally relicense them to those who do not | |
| 307 | -wish to be subject to the GPL. The GPL is being used in this case not so | |
| 308 | -much to promote the FOSS philosophy but as a prod to drive companies | |
| 309 | -toward the "commercial version," which is naturally available only for a | |
| 310 | -significant fee. Because a CLA is unnecessary for the legal integrity of | |
| 311 | -a GPL-based | |
| 306 | +usually done to further commercial interests rather than to maintain | |
| 307 | +the legal integrity of the | |
| 312 | 308 | [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_and_open-source_software|FOSS] |
| 313 | -project, it's often dispensed with when there aren't other | |
| 314 | -considerations pushing the organization to require one. | |
| 309 | +project itself. | |
| 315 | 310 | |
| 316 | 311 | Contrast a BSD-style project, where contributions are not automatically |
| 317 | 312 | relicensed merely by being distributed with the preexisting BSD code. |
| 318 | 313 | Such projects often require a CLA even when there are no corporate |
| 319 | 314 | interests, to ensure |
| 320 | 315 |
| --- www/fossil-v-git.wiki | |
| +++ www/fossil-v-git.wiki | |
| @@ -155,11 +155,12 @@ | |
| 155 | Fossil was specifically designed to support the development of SQLite. |
| 156 | |
| 157 | SQLite is much more widely deployed than the Linux kernel, but for |
| 158 | Linux-based systems, the kernel is the more fundamental component. |
| 159 | Although both projects must rank high on any objective list of "most |
| 160 | important FOSS projects," the two projects are almost entirely unlike |
| 161 | one another, and this shows up in the design choices of the tools |
| 162 | created to support them. |
| 163 | |
| 164 | The Linux kernel uses a bazaar-style development model. There are thousands and |
| 165 | thousands of contributors, most of whom do not know each others names. |
| @@ -300,20 +301,14 @@ | |
| 300 | This difference in outlook allows a GPL-based project to do without a |
| 301 | [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contributor_License_Agreement|constributor |
| 302 | license agreement] (CLA) because by the very act of distributing |
| 303 | binaries, you are bound to also distribute the source under a compatible |
| 304 | license. There are GPL-based projects that do require a CLA, but this is |
| 305 | typically done in order to allow a corporation to "own" the |
| 306 | contributions so that it can legally relicense them to those who do not |
| 307 | wish to be subject to the GPL. The GPL is being used in this case not so |
| 308 | much to promote the FOSS philosophy but as a prod to drive companies |
| 309 | toward the "commercial version," which is naturally available only for a |
| 310 | significant fee. Because a CLA is unnecessary for the legal integrity of |
| 311 | a GPL-based |
| 312 | [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_and_open-source_software|FOSS] |
| 313 | project, it's often dispensed with when there aren't other |
| 314 | considerations pushing the organization to require one. |
| 315 | |
| 316 | Contrast a BSD-style project, where contributions are not automatically |
| 317 | relicensed merely by being distributed with the preexisting BSD code. |
| 318 | Such projects often require a CLA even when there are no corporate |
| 319 | interests, to ensure |
| 320 |
| --- www/fossil-v-git.wiki | |
| +++ www/fossil-v-git.wiki | |
| @@ -155,11 +155,12 @@ | |
| 155 | Fossil was specifically designed to support the development of SQLite. |
| 156 | |
| 157 | SQLite is much more widely deployed than the Linux kernel, but for |
| 158 | Linux-based systems, the kernel is the more fundamental component. |
| 159 | Although both projects must rank high on any objective list of "most |
| 160 | important [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_and_open-source_software|FOSS] |
| 161 | projects," the two projects are almost entirely unlike |
| 162 | one another, and this shows up in the design choices of the tools |
| 163 | created to support them. |
| 164 | |
| 165 | The Linux kernel uses a bazaar-style development model. There are thousands and |
| 166 | thousands of contributors, most of whom do not know each others names. |
| @@ -300,20 +301,14 @@ | |
| 301 | This difference in outlook allows a GPL-based project to do without a |
| 302 | [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contributor_License_Agreement|constributor |
| 303 | license agreement] (CLA) because by the very act of distributing |
| 304 | binaries, you are bound to also distribute the source under a compatible |
| 305 | license. There are GPL-based projects that do require a CLA, but this is |
| 306 | usually done to further commercial interests rather than to maintain |
| 307 | the legal integrity of the |
| 308 | [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_and_open-source_software|FOSS] |
| 309 | project itself. |
| 310 | |
| 311 | Contrast a BSD-style project, where contributions are not automatically |
| 312 | relicensed merely by being distributed with the preexisting BSD code. |
| 313 | Such projects often require a CLA even when there are no corporate |
| 314 | interests, to ensure |
| 315 |