Is Bazaar's document distributed under GPL?

[Stephen J. Turnbull]

Wichmann, Mats D writes:

 > Proprietary training materials should not be cutting straight from
 > GPL'd code/docs.

That's legally impossible.  I assume you mean "free code/docs," and I
strongly disagree.

If you feel that proprietary work building on yours detracts from your
freedom, please do use and advocate copyleft to protect your freedom
as you understand it.  But telling those of us who have other opinions
about how to protect and exercise our own freedom what to do is
antithetical to the whole idea of freedom.

As for what Bazaar should do, it's up to the principal developers, and
specifically the rightsholder, Canonical.  I prefer permissive
licenses as a matter of ethical principle, but also see very little
Canonical-commercial or Bazaar-project-promoting benefit from using a
permissive license for documentation, and definite harm to the project
from not using the GPL (the inability of non-Canonical branches to
move content from GPLed code to non-GPL documentation without
completing the bureaucratic rigamarole before posting each change --
that means no public review of such patches without getting legal
permission!)