What's Canonical thinking about Bazaar?

[Stephen J. Turnbull]

Patrick Regan writes:

 > I may be unique in this view, but I think you'd find that there are
 > others who would think similarly (especially those who will NOT read
 > this mailing list).

This has been acknowledged by all concerned at this point.

 > Most users are not religious. Even those who love and use Open Source.

It's mostly not a question of religion.  The kind of user who is
turned off from contributing by "corporate product" branding and one
vendor's dominance of the development team is of disproportionate
importance to an open source community.

Also, Canonical has registered Bazaar as a GNU project, and has gotten
one very high-profile "sale" (Emacs) *purely* on that basis, over the
*vociferous* objections of several core developers (including a couple
who were very active in the anti-BitKeeper movement on lkml) and very
lukewarm support from the core, including the listed maintainers.
"Corporate product" branding doesn't fit with my image of a GNU
project.  I suppose you can call that religious.  It's certainly a
political tightrope to walk.  RMS can be a hairy nuisance if he thinks
he's been used or double-crossed, and it's never been clear to me how
far his endorsement of corporate "ownership" of free software goes.