Bzr development stopped

[Wichmann, Mats D]

On Wed, Sep 12, 2012 at 11:44 AM, Stephen J. Turnbull
<stephen at xemacs.org> wrote:
>
> Matthieu Moy writes:
>
>  > | project resulted would have to have copyright held by Canonical. The
>  > | stated reason was allowing proprietary feature extensions as part of
>  > | their Launchpad strategy.
>
> So what?  That's not the Canonical contributor agreement, which
> involves no transfer of copyright.

It used to, though:

5. Didn’t Canonical previously use a different agreement?

Yes, up until July 2011 we used the Canonical Contributor Agreement 2.5. ...

7. What’s different between the new contributor agreement and the old one?

One difference between the two is that the old agreement was a
copyright assignment agreement ...
===

That would have been in effect at the time of the bzr/hg discussion
referenced in the email.

By the way, I agree with Stephen when he says
"I would suspect that the strict quality control is a bigger factor ..."

A version control system is a particularly sensitive topic in that a mistake
in the wrong place can corrupt a lengthy project history, one reason
one should think hard about what one is signing up for before any
possible fork :)