Is Bazaar's document distributed under GPL?

[Stephen J. Turnbull]

David Muir writes:

 > Except that in many cases, company X would not want to, or cannot 
 > provide the source for their training material (i.e. material may 
 > contain copyrighted works that cannot be re-licensed as GPL)

Sure, but that means a license *more permissive* than the GPL on
Bazaar documentation, which has two problems:

(1) some translators say they want a less permissive license (the
    GFDL), and

(2) material cannot be copied from code into documentation (either as
    examples of who to write code or to document the precise working
    of a particular function) without the explicit permission of the
    rightsholder, which I assure (from painful personal experience
    with the FSF) definitely hinders the work of downstream free
    software developers.

It's not clear to me why Bazaar should go out of its way to cater to
third parties that have made the mistake of using proprietary
material.  I would hope that Canonical would grant them permission to
limited non-free usage, at nominal fees, though.