Is Bazaar's document distributed under GPL?

[Stephen J. Turnbull]

Ian Clatworthy writes:
 > Robert Collins wrote:
 > 
 > > I think the GPL is fine for documentation, as already mentioned its
 > > _more_ liberal for translators than GFDL. I'm not aware of any uses
 > > (including the printing of dead tree books) that the GPL would prohibit.
 > 
 > My main concern is ensuring we don't unnecessarily restrict authors from
 > creating training materials.

Huh?  In terms of what people can actually *do*, the GFDL is *strictly
more restrictive* than the GPL.  For example, if you abstract a
presentation about what Emacs can do from its Texinfo documentation,
you *must* include the entire GPL in that presentation because it's an
invariant section.  You *must* include the words "A GNU Manual" on the
title slide because it's a defined cover text.  If you have it in
encrypted form on a cheap USB key which you give to a friend in need
of media, you must either delete the encrypted file first, or provide
the friend with the decryption key.

Presumably Bazaar will use a no-Invariant Sections, no-cover-text
version of the license, but the temptation to "just have the GPL be an
invariant section" and stuff like that is pretty stong.