Is Bazaar's document distributed under GPL?

[Stephen J. Turnbull]

Martin Pool writes:
 > 2009/9/21 Stephen J. Turnbull <stephen at xemacs.org>:

 > > This is a major problem.  In a language like Python (or Emacs Lisp,
 > > where I have to deal with the God-Forsaken DL on a daily basis when
 > > porting Emacs to XEmacs), it is potentially very costly in terms of
 > > redundant rewriting to comply with the GFDL.
 > 
 > It is a major problem in general, but it's not a major problem here
 > because we have a single copyright holder who will make exercise
 > common sense in allowing text to move between the two of them.

No.  I still have to ask permission if I want to give my sister a
modified copy.  Companies making internal training materials etc will
have every excuse for not releasing their internal improvements --
it's against the law.  It's *not* about Canonical's convenience, it's
about promoting software freedom.

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

This is more important than copying Bazaar text from code to
documentation and back?  I'm confused.

 > Would we want CC-BY rather than CC-BY-SA?  The only case advanced so
 > far is "so people can make non-free derivatives, specifically training
 > manuals."  Having people make site-specific training is important and
 > worthwhile. 

This is not a problem, as you point out.  The problem occurs when a
third party wants to make proprietary training materials that can be
used in a consulting context.  Whether that's a concern or not is up
to you.