Is Bazaar's document distributed under GPL?

[Martin Pool]

2009/9/21 Stephen J. Turnbull <stephen at xemacs.org>:
> Martin Pool writes:
>  > Robert Collins writes:
>
>  > > For instance, you cannot copy documentation in from the user manual into
>  > > the migration guide without relicencing the migration guide. And ditto
>  > > for help topics in the code itself
>
> This is a major problem.  In a language like Python (or Emacs Lisp,
> where I have to deal with the God-Forsaken DL on a daily basis when
> porting Emacs to XEmacs), it is potentially very costly in terms of
> redundant rewriting to comply with the GFDL.

It is a major problem in general, but it's not a major problem here
because we have a single copyright holder who will make exercise
common sense in allowing text to move between the two of them.
However, it's still worth questioning whether the benefit of using
different licences is justified, because there is at least some
hassle.

It looks like GFDL is out of consideration, so let's not confuse
ourselves beating it any more.

So why would we want to use CC-BY-SA rather than GPL for the docs?

 * CC-BY-SA is more commonly used and understood for documentation and
web sites, and considered a better match.
 * As a consequence people may be happier translating, improving or
adapting our site or documentation.
 * This licence is popular for wikis, so Bazaar text can be copied
into them and vice versa.
 * Anything else?

Would we want CC-BY rather than CC-BY-SA?  The only case advanced so
far is "so people can make non-free derivatives, specifically training
manuals."  Having people make site-specific training is important and
worthwhile.  However, under either the GPL or CC-BY-SA they can still
make and use derivatives internally (for their own staff) with no
obligation to make them available to the whole world.  And people
commonly do.

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