Is Bazaar's document distributed under GPL?

[Robert Collins]

On Mon, 2009-09-21 at 11:18 +1000, Ian Clatworthy wrote:
> Martin Pool wrote:
> > 2009/9/21 INADA Naoki <songofacandy at gmail.com>:
> 
> >> Must we treat Bazaar's document under GPL?
> >> Or can we treat it under other license like GFDL?
> > 
> > At the moment it is under the GPL, like the code.  I'm open to
> > changing it to GFDL or something else, or possibly dual-licensing.
> > I'll refer it to our licence expert, in parallel with this thread.
> > 
> 
> I'm far from a licensing expert but I personally feel that CC-A is a
> better choice for most documents than GPL.

Do you mean CC-BY http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/?

That is roughly equivalent to BSD/MIT licensing. I'm currently
reevaluating what licences I want to use for my own works [which is
wildly offtopic here]. I think CC-BY is fine for docs we'll be writing
anyway. It is however more relaxed than the GPL because it doesn't
prevent tighter restrictions being placed on the work by others. I don't
know that we need to do that, but it is strange to have docs for
something that is GPL under a license with different terms - it makes it
harder for folk that are remixing. 

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.

I think its a very good idea to use a single licence across the whole
suite, to avoid such problems.

-Rob
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 197 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
Url : https://lists.ubuntu.com/archives/bazaar/attachments/20090921/e28d69c5/attachment-0002.pgp