That said, IMO the distinction of "not an official Debian project" is less about where the service is running (it's a volunteer project, anyway) than about how integrated it is with the rest of Debian. For a while, Debian Live has been showing strong signs of being Daniel's personal project -- with a lot of users, to be fair -- and not really working with other Debian teams or developers. I think that's what came to a head here.
It's been a while since I worked on this, but IIRC Ubuntu's live image is based on Casper, which is a separate system from live-build (though live-build supports using Casper).
Also, bear in mind that the specific reason this happened was that there were features live-build didn't support, like UEFI boot, that the Debian project needed. This entire kerfuffle came about because Debian wanted a better live boot system.
So, it is probable that a live-cd will still exist, but it won't be the one called "Debian Live".
On the plus side: I'd say that was the tipping point where OpenOffice jumped the shark and the LibreOffice project was the ultimate outcome.
("live" installers are widely useful; eg. Kali and Ubuntu I believe are based on Debian and I can't imagine either of these projects abandoning the possibility of a "live" boot)
Edit: thanks for answering, Wilya and maheart! If you two are right, then maybe this topic really isn't important enough to merit the front page of HN (I mean, Debian drama is nothing new)?