Is Bazaar's document distributed under GPL?

[Martin Pool]

2009/9/21 Ian Clatworthy <ian.clatworthy at canonical.com>:
> 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.

I think it's probably better than GFDL at least.  For software,
particularly where we ship things altogether and sometimes move
content from one to the other having the same licence over all may be
better.

> FYI, I put the Bazaar website (https://edge.launchpad.net/bzr-alldocs)
> and Migration docs (https://edge.launchpad.net/bzr-migration-docs)
> projects under Creative Commons - Attribution instead of GPL. Unless I'm
> told otherwise, I plan to do the same for the explorer website and docs.

It would be good to have all Bazaar docs under the same licence.

Canonical's policy on this says

> New non-software projects (such as graphics, sound, etc.) should, in general, be licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution Share-Alike license (CC-BY-SA)

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