I'm going to give Fossil a try, mainly because it is the only thing I've seen that has everything that I currently want. I'm a little bit worried about the Cathedral/Bazaar approach... I really like the idea that every copy of the source code is an implied branch. However, I suspect that I will have few enough collaborators for it to be of any matter.

Their characterisation of GPL vs BSD licensing in the git vs fossil comparison is frustrating though. I wonder if there is a way to convince them to update it because it really reduces their credibility. I'm specifically referring to "the GPL license grants the right to read source code to anyone who promises to give back enhancements". This is just completely incorrect. From the GPL V3: "You may make, run and propagate covered works that you do not convey, without conditions". In other words, as long as you don't "convey" (distribute) your changes, you can do whatever the heck you want (including reading the source code).

When taken out of context, it does sound bad, but please include the entire paragraph, because it's clear that not as you describe.

> To a first approximation, the GPL license grants the right to read source code to anyone who promises to give back enhancements. In other words, the act of reading GPL source code (a prerequiste for making changes) implies acceptance of the license which requires updates to be contributed back under the same license. (The details are more complex, but the foregoing captures the essence of the idea.) A big advantage of the GPL is that anybody can contribute to the code without having to sign additional legal documentation because they have implied their acceptance of the GPL license by the very act of reading the source code. This means that a GPL project can legally accept anonymous and drive-by patches.

This entire paragraph is incorrect. You do not imply your acceptance of the GPL by reading the source code. You do not have to accept the license at all. However, if you do not accept the license, then you have no right to distribute the code. It is on conveyance (distribution) that the restrictions show up. There are absolutely no restrictions on what you can do if you do not distribute the code.

That whole section in their documentation is just weird, to be honest. There is nothing in the BSD license that requires you to sign additional legal documentation either. The fossil project requires copyright assignment to include your code in the project (many FSF projects require the same thing with their projects for similar reasons).

They should just delete that section so that they don't look like they don't know what they are talking about.

Edit: They could rewrite the section to say that by distributing the code you have implicitly agreed to the license. This is more or less true. The license actually hinges on the fact that you never have to agree, but that if you don't agree then you only that the rights assigned to you by copyright (see section 9 of the GPL v3). The bit that's weird is that there is absolutely no difference with the BSD license -- you don't have to agree, but if you don't, then you don't have a license. The only real difference is that the BSD license doesn't explicitly say so.

At first I thought they were trying to make a political point, but the more I look at it, the more I think they just want to justify requiring copyright assignment. The obvious question is "Why don't all those GPL projects require it?" So they came up with something plausible, but completely incorrect.