Is Bazaar's document distributed under GPL?

[Martin Pool]

2009/9/21 Robert Collins <robert.collins at canonical.com>:
> On Mon, 2009-09-21 at 12:36 +1000, Martin Pool wrote:
>>
>>  - Canonical's policy states a preference for CC-BY-SA (sharealike, ie
>> a kind of copyleft iiuc) -- is that better or worse for our purposes
>> than CC-BY?
>
> Neither is better or worse AFAICT; the code is GPL; we can copy from
> CC-BY or CC-BY-SA to the codebase, but not the other way around.

I understand that, but GPL compatibilty is not the only variable.

>>  - Should we move all our docs to be CC-BY-SA or CC-BY?  Consistency
>> seems good.  There may be some questions about docs autogenerated from
>> code etc but they should be soluble.
>>
>>  - Should/can it be dual CC/GPL?  Is that even possible?
>>
>>  - What is the FSF's opinion?
>>
>>  - What is Canonical's opinion?
>
> Good questions :)
>
>> "All docs are CC-BY-SA and GPL, all code is GPL" is fairly clear and
>> simple.
>
> If we do that, we still can't copy from the code to the docs.

We can, we just need the copyright holder to assent to relicence the
material as it moves across.  It should be quite feasible for
Canonical to agree in advance that project participants can move
documentation from code to manuals or vice versa.

>> Meaning the code and documentation?  I see your point but that seems
>> to lock us to GPL, since a non-copyleft licence for the code is not on
>> the cards.
>
> I think the GPL is fine for documentation, as already mentioned its
> _more_ liberal for translators than GFDL.

Yes, but translators do in fact report it being a problem -- at least
a problem of perception, maybe more.  So I'm interested to know why.

-- 
Martin <http://launchpad.net/~mbp/>