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]. It is not our purpose here to try to persuade you to make
style license]. Neither license affects the repository contents managed
by either Fossil or Git, but we do believe it affects the design and
implementation of these two DVCSes, which may affect your choice when
deciding which one you'd rather use.
the same choice of license that we did. Neither license affects the
managed repository contents. However, we do believe the choice of
license affected the design and implementation of these two DVCSes,
which may affect your choice when deciding which one you'd rather use.

The key emphasis in the GPL is that if you distribute a binary built from
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
The GPL allows a 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
usually done to further commercial interests rather than to maintain
the legal integrity of the
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_and_open-source_software|FOSS]

also drives off those unable to accept the CLA's restrictions on their
rights, which are otherwise quite minimal under a BSD-style license. The
GPL requires much the same sort of relinquishment of rights without this
up-front gatekeeping.

We think this additional friction is not an entirely bad thing. We think
it creates greater contributor community cohesion, because everyone who
made it over the legal hurdle has made an active step to get into that
made it over the legal hurdle has made an affirmative step to get into that
community. More to the point here in this document, we think it affects
the design and implementation of Fossil: its contributions come from a
smaller, more cohesive group of people than with Git.

These differences in world-view show up in the design and implementation
of these two DVCSes. 
Git encourages anonymous contributions