Fossil SCM
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.
Commit
cb1b007cd5c0aaf0712f29454cc1f603b6b9ddbae9ce6f1878cd266f40a29040
Parent
f5a39a7e1d77a4a…
1 file changed
+9
-6
+9
-6
| --- www/fossil-v-git.wiki | ||
| +++ www/fossil-v-git.wiki | ||
| @@ -283,11 +283,14 @@ | ||
| 283 | 283 | |
| 284 | 284 | <h3>2.9 GPL vs. BSD</h3> |
| 285 | 285 | |
| 286 | 286 | Git is covered by the GPL license, whereas Fossil is covered by |
| 287 | 287 | [https://fossil-scm.org/fossil/file/COPYRIGHT-BSD2.txt|a two-clause BSD |
| 288 | -style license]. | |
| 288 | +style license]. Neither license affects the repository contents managed | |
| 289 | +by either Fossil or Git, but we do believe it affects the design and | |
| 290 | +implementation of these two DVCSes, which may affect your choice when | |
| 291 | +deciding which one you'd rather use. | |
| 289 | 292 | |
| 290 | 293 | The key emphasis in the GPL is that if you distribute a binary built from |
| 291 | 294 | a piece of GPL-licensed source code that you changed, you |
| 292 | 295 | must also distribute the source code used to produce that binary. To |
| 293 | 296 | enforce that, the GPL licenses have their famous |
| @@ -328,16 +331,16 @@ | ||
| 328 | 331 | made it over the legal hurdle has made an active step to get into that |
| 329 | 332 | community. More to the point here in this document, we think it affects |
| 330 | 333 | the design and implementation of Fossil: its contributions come from a |
| 331 | 334 | smaller, more cohesive group of people than with Git. |
| 332 | 335 | |
| 333 | -Neither license affects the repository contents managed by either Fossil | |
| 334 | -or Git. Nevertheless, one can see a more GPL-oriented world-view in Git and a | |
| 335 | -more BSD-oriented world-view in Fossil. Git encourages anonymous contributions | |
| 336 | +These differences in world-view show up in the design and implementation | |
| 337 | +of these two DVCSes. | |
| 338 | +Git encourages anonymous contributions | |
| 336 | 339 | and siloed development, which are hallmarks of the GPL/bazaar approach to |
| 337 | -software, whereas Fossil encourages a more tightly collaborative, | |
| 338 | -cliquish, cathedral-style approach more typical of BSD-licensed projects. | |
| 340 | +software, whereas Fossil encourages a more tightly collaborative | |
| 341 | +cathedral-style approach more typical of BSD-licensed projects. | |
| 339 | 342 | |
| 340 | 343 | <h2>3.0 Missing Features</h2> |
| 341 | 344 | |
| 342 | 345 | Most of the capabilities found in Git are also available in Fossil and |
| 343 | 346 | the other way around. For example, both systems have local check-outs, |
| 344 | 347 |
| --- www/fossil-v-git.wiki | |
| +++ www/fossil-v-git.wiki | |
| @@ -283,11 +283,14 @@ | |
| 283 | |
| 284 | <h3>2.9 GPL vs. BSD</h3> |
| 285 | |
| 286 | Git is covered by the GPL license, whereas Fossil is covered by |
| 287 | [https://fossil-scm.org/fossil/file/COPYRIGHT-BSD2.txt|a two-clause BSD |
| 288 | style license]. |
| 289 | |
| 290 | The key emphasis in the GPL is that if you distribute a binary built from |
| 291 | a piece of GPL-licensed source code that you changed, you |
| 292 | must also distribute the source code used to produce that binary. To |
| 293 | enforce that, the GPL licenses have their famous |
| @@ -328,16 +331,16 @@ | |
| 328 | made it over the legal hurdle has made an active step to get into that |
| 329 | community. More to the point here in this document, we think it affects |
| 330 | the design and implementation of Fossil: its contributions come from a |
| 331 | smaller, more cohesive group of people than with Git. |
| 332 | |
| 333 | Neither license affects the repository contents managed by either Fossil |
| 334 | or Git. Nevertheless, one can see a more GPL-oriented world-view in Git and a |
| 335 | more BSD-oriented world-view in Fossil. Git encourages anonymous contributions |
| 336 | and siloed development, which are hallmarks of the GPL/bazaar approach to |
| 337 | software, whereas Fossil encourages a more tightly collaborative, |
| 338 | cliquish, cathedral-style approach more typical of BSD-licensed projects. |
| 339 | |
| 340 | <h2>3.0 Missing Features</h2> |
| 341 | |
| 342 | Most of the capabilities found in Git are also available in Fossil and |
| 343 | the other way around. For example, both systems have local check-outs, |
| 344 |
| --- www/fossil-v-git.wiki | |
| +++ www/fossil-v-git.wiki | |
| @@ -283,11 +283,14 @@ | |
| 283 | |
| 284 | <h3>2.9 GPL vs. BSD</h3> |
| 285 | |
| 286 | Git is covered by the GPL license, whereas Fossil is covered by |
| 287 | [https://fossil-scm.org/fossil/file/COPYRIGHT-BSD2.txt|a two-clause BSD |
| 288 | style license]. Neither license affects the repository contents managed |
| 289 | by either Fossil or Git, but we do believe it affects the design and |
| 290 | implementation of these two DVCSes, which may affect your choice when |
| 291 | deciding which one you'd rather use. |
| 292 | |
| 293 | The key emphasis in the GPL is that if you distribute a binary built from |
| 294 | a piece of GPL-licensed source code that you changed, you |
| 295 | must also distribute the source code used to produce that binary. To |
| 296 | enforce that, the GPL licenses have their famous |
| @@ -328,16 +331,16 @@ | |
| 331 | made it over the legal hurdle has made an active step to get into that |
| 332 | community. More to the point here in this document, we think it affects |
| 333 | the design and implementation of Fossil: its contributions come from a |
| 334 | smaller, more cohesive group of people than with Git. |
| 335 | |
| 336 | These differences in world-view show up in the design and implementation |
| 337 | of these two DVCSes. |
| 338 | Git encourages anonymous contributions |
| 339 | and siloed development, which are hallmarks of the GPL/bazaar approach to |
| 340 | software, whereas Fossil encourages a more tightly collaborative |
| 341 | cathedral-style approach more typical of BSD-licensed projects. |
| 342 | |
| 343 | <h2>3.0 Missing Features</h2> |
| 344 | |
| 345 | Most of the capabilities found in Git are also available in Fossil and |
| 346 | the other way around. For example, both systems have local check-outs, |
| 347 |