Is Bazaar's document distributed under GPL?

[Martin Pool]

2009/9/21 Martin Pool <mbp at canonical.com>:
> 2009/9/21 INADA Naoki <songofacandy at gmail.com>:
>> Hi all.
>>
>> lp:~bzr-ja team has started Document translation project lp:bzr-doc-ja.
>>
>> Now we discussing about Document License.
>> Some restriction in GPL is too heavy for Documents and it is why GNU
>> presents GFDL.
>>
>> 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.

After some internal discussion, Canonical has decided/clarified that
our normal position is to licence documentation under CC-BY-SA.  I
think we should do that for new documentation too.  For things closely
related to code it can be under the GPL too.  For existing GPL
documents I'm open to changing them - but from this thread it seemed
that there was no compelling reason to do so.  We should also put
clearer licence/copyright marks in each document.

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