What's Canonical thinking about Bazaar?

[Zooko Wilcox-O'Hearn]

On Wednesday, 2009-11-11, at 20:43 , Stephen J. Turnbull wrote:

> "Good faith" and "bad faith" are objectively measurable, according  
> to whether (1) promises are kept, and (2) whether certain  
> information relevant to a negotiation is honestly and fully revealed.

Perhaps I should have tried to find a less incendiary phrase than  
"bad faith".  Martin cited the open-sourcing of launchpad as an  
example of Canonical demonstrating "good faith", and while I guess I  
don't know precisely what he meant by that, I did have the strong  
feeling that the effect of the launchpad saga was the opposite of  
what he was claiming -- that it had made some of the people who love  
Free/Open Source software less confident in Canonical's commitment to  
open source rather than more.

However, as I subsequently tried to explain, I don't consider a  
company's "commitment to open source" to be a moral issue.

I'm not sure how to express pithily this quality that I'm thinking of  
-- "the degree to which members of the open source community assume  
that a company will do 'the right thing' with regard to open  
source".  Whoops, see?  There I go again using value-laden words like  
"the right thing".

Anyway, I don't believe corporations have a moral imperative to try  
to maximize this quality, but some of them might make it a strategic  
imperative. :-)

Regards,

Zooko