<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN"> <html> <head> <meta content="text/html;charset=ISO-8859-1" http-equiv="Content-Type"> </head> <body bgcolor="#ffffff" text="#000000"> Russel Winder wrote: <blockquote cite="mid:1255067650.8201.4367.camel@balin" type="cite"> <pre wrap="">Martin, On Fri, 2009-10-09 at 16:33 +1100, Martin Pool wrote: </pre> <blockquote type="cite"> <pre wrap="">I propose that we move the Bazaar site to bazaar.canonical.com. After the 2.0.0 milestone, Canonical wants to more clearly show its support for Bazaar, while still recognizing that Bazaar is more than just Canonical and has its own community. </pre> </blockquote> <pre wrap=""> I appreciate that this is likely a fait accompli, but there is a downside. A URL like <a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://bazaar.canonical.com">http://bazaar.canonical.com</a> clearly makes Bazaar a Canonical product rather than a FOSS project. <a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://www.bazaar-vcs.org">http://www.bazaar-vcs.org</a> may be awkward in many ways but it is vendor neutral. It is undeniably true the most of the committing team are Canonical staff, and without Canonical's support the project would likely have stalled long ago. There is however a difference between explicitly stated support (and marketing) and apparent ownership. Canonical are the official copyright holder and so in all ways actually do own the product. But there is a subtlety to the current status quo where the project is a GNU project and has a vendor neutral domain from which it operates. Whilst I understand Canonical wishing to expose and market its support for this GNU project, some people may well react badly to this change. If the project had always had bazaar.canonical.com, I doubt anyone would worry because Bazaar is a FOSS project and anyone can contribute and use. It is the change, not the fact that worries me a little. </pre> </blockquote> I don't think the change would bother most .... unfortunately perception isn't always logical.  :( Ian's mail about getting the word out about bzr 2.0, talks about the bzr/canonical myth ... I can only think that this would strengthen that myth. -- Matt </body> </html>