Bzr development stopped
Stephen J. Turnbull
stephen at xemacs.org
Wed Sep 12 02:50:53 UTC 2012
Ben Finney writes:
> "Stephen J. Turnbull" <stephen at xemacs.org> writes:
> > This subthread is about whether the Canonical contributor agreement is
> > massively inhibiting contribution to Bazaar.
>
> That might be what you've decided to talk about in later messages, but
> that was never my claim.
Of course it was (quoting the whole post so as to ensure all relevant
context is present):
In <87627xbxz3.fsf_-_ at benfinney.id.au> Ben Finney wrote:
> Frits Jalvingh <jal at etc.to> writes:
>> Of course it is easy to nag because I'm not contributing either
> One of the biggest points holding back development is the barrier of a
> one-sided contribution agreement.
> <URL:http://www.canonical.com/contributors>
> It's great to have Bazaar under the GPL, ensuring further redistribution
> is always under the GPL. But Canonical is not content with equal
> a treatment and insists code contributors give them special rights to
> relicense under non-free terms -- breaking the equality essential to
> software freedom.
> <URL:http://blogs.computerworlduk.com/simon-says/2010/08/on-contributor-agreements/index.htm>
> This is surely limiting the pool of developers on Bazaar.
> <URL:http://blog.martin-graesslin.com/blog/2011/07/why-i-would-not-sign-a-harmony-agreement/>
If you want to retract that statement, please do. Then you can have
the last word for sure. :-)
More information about the bazaar
mailing list