Is Bazaar's document distributed under GPL?

[Ben Finney]

Martin Pool <mbp at canonical.com> writes:

> So why would we want to use CC-BY-SA rather than GPL for the docs?
>
>  * CC-BY-SA is more commonly used and understood for documentation and
> web sites, and considered a better match.
>  * As a consequence people may be happier translating, improving or
> adapting our site or documentation.

My only comment on the above two points is that they are “merely” a
matter of education. There is nothing about the GPL that makes it
inappropriate for applying to software intended for use as documentation
or web sites.

>  * This licence is popular for wikis, so Bazaar text can be copied
> into them and vice versa.

Not true for any software not under that license (e.g. any of the source
code, including help text). Parts of a work under GPL terms cannot be so
copied and redistributed under different terms.

>  * Anything else?
>
> Would we want CC-BY rather than CC-BY-SA?

That would be a non-copyleft, and as you say I don't see any convincing
argument that a non-copyleft license would be desirable for any part of
the work.

-- 
 \       “I am amazed, O Wall, that you have not collapsed and fallen, |
  `\            since you must bear the tedious stupidities of so many |
_o__)                  scrawlers.” —anonymous graffiti, Pompeii, 79 CE |
Ben Finney