Fossil SCM
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.
Commit
d48fdb41fb80fa8aa5e2cb4b43f2bb961c5bfea1fc5a7e55ac52a23c86dd9468
Parent
cb1b007cd5c0aaf…
1 file changed
+8
-18
+8
-18
| --- www/fossil-v-git.wiki | ||
| +++ www/fossil-v-git.wiki | ||
| @@ -283,27 +283,17 @@ | ||
| 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]. 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 | |
| 297 | -[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Viral_license|viral provisions]. | |
| 298 | - | |
| 299 | -We can summarize the key emphasis of the BSD style licenses as "Please | |
| 300 | -don't sue us." A BSD style license places very little restriction on | |
| 301 | -what you are allowed to do with the source code or the binaries produced | |
| 302 | -from that source code. | |
| 303 | - | |
| 304 | -This difference in outlook allows a GPL-based project to do without a | |
| 288 | +style license]. It is not our purpose here to try to persuade you to make | |
| 289 | +the same choice of license that we did. Neither license affects the | |
| 290 | +managed repository contents. However, we do believe the choice of | |
| 291 | +license affected the design and implementation of these two DVCSes, | |
| 292 | +which may affect your choice when deciding which one you'd rather use. | |
| 293 | + | |
| 294 | +The GPL allows a project to do without a | |
| 305 | 295 | [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contributor_License_Agreement|constributor |
| 306 | 296 | license agreement] (CLA) because by the very act of distributing |
| 307 | 297 | binaries, you are bound to also distribute the source under a compatible |
| 308 | 298 | license. There are GPL-based projects that do require a CLA, but this is |
| 309 | 299 | usually done to further commercial interests rather than to maintain |
| @@ -326,11 +316,11 @@ | ||
| 326 | 316 | GPL requires much the same sort of relinquishment of rights without this |
| 327 | 317 | up-front gatekeeping. |
| 328 | 318 | |
| 329 | 319 | We think this additional friction is not an entirely bad thing. We think |
| 330 | 320 | it creates greater contributor community cohesion, because everyone who |
| 331 | -made it over the legal hurdle has made an active step to get into that | |
| 321 | +made it over the legal hurdle has made an affirmative step to get into that | |
| 332 | 322 | community. More to the point here in this document, we think it affects |
| 333 | 323 | the design and implementation of Fossil: its contributions come from a |
| 334 | 324 | smaller, more cohesive group of people than with Git. |
| 335 | 325 | |
| 336 | 326 | These differences in world-view show up in the design and implementation |
| 337 | 327 |
| --- www/fossil-v-git.wiki | |
| +++ www/fossil-v-git.wiki | |
| @@ -283,27 +283,17 @@ | |
| 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 |
| 297 | [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Viral_license|viral provisions]. |
| 298 | |
| 299 | We can summarize the key emphasis of the BSD style licenses as "Please |
| 300 | don't sue us." A BSD style license places very little restriction on |
| 301 | what you are allowed to do with the source code or the binaries produced |
| 302 | from that source code. |
| 303 | |
| 304 | This difference in outlook allows a GPL-based project to do without a |
| 305 | [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contributor_License_Agreement|constributor |
| 306 | license agreement] (CLA) because by the very act of distributing |
| 307 | binaries, you are bound to also distribute the source under a compatible |
| 308 | license. There are GPL-based projects that do require a CLA, but this is |
| 309 | usually done to further commercial interests rather than to maintain |
| @@ -326,11 +316,11 @@ | |
| 326 | GPL requires much the same sort of relinquishment of rights without this |
| 327 | up-front gatekeeping. |
| 328 | |
| 329 | We think this additional friction is not an entirely bad thing. We think |
| 330 | it creates greater contributor community cohesion, because everyone who |
| 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 |
| --- www/fossil-v-git.wiki | |
| +++ www/fossil-v-git.wiki | |
| @@ -283,27 +283,17 @@ | |
| 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]. It is not our purpose here to try to persuade you to make |
| 289 | the same choice of license that we did. Neither license affects the |
| 290 | managed repository contents. However, we do believe the choice of |
| 291 | license affected the design and implementation of these two DVCSes, |
| 292 | which may affect your choice when deciding which one you'd rather use. |
| 293 | |
| 294 | The GPL allows a project to do without a |
| 295 | [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contributor_License_Agreement|constributor |
| 296 | license agreement] (CLA) because by the very act of distributing |
| 297 | binaries, you are bound to also distribute the source under a compatible |
| 298 | license. There are GPL-based projects that do require a CLA, but this is |
| 299 | usually done to further commercial interests rather than to maintain |
| @@ -326,11 +316,11 @@ | |
| 316 | GPL requires much the same sort of relinquishment of rights without this |
| 317 | up-front gatekeeping. |
| 318 | |
| 319 | We think this additional friction is not an entirely bad thing. We think |
| 320 | it creates greater contributor community cohesion, because everyone who |
| 321 | made it over the legal hurdle has made an affirmative step to get into that |
| 322 | community. More to the point here in this document, we think it affects |
| 323 | the design and implementation of Fossil: its contributions come from a |
| 324 | smaller, more cohesive group of people than with Git. |
| 325 | |
| 326 | These differences in world-view show up in the design and implementation |
| 327 |