Bzr development stopped

[Stephen J. Turnbull]

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. :-)