Is Bazaar's document distributed under GPL?

[Robert Collins]

On Mon, 2009-09-21 at 09:58 +1000, Martin Pool wrote:
> 2009/9/21 INADA Naoki <songofacandy at gmail.com>:
> > Hi all.
> >
> > lp:~bzr-ja team has started Document translation project lp:bzr-doc-ja.
> >
> > Now we discussing about Document License.
> > Some restriction in GPL is too heavy for Documents and it is why GNU
> > presents GFDL.
> >
> > 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.

The GFDL is strictly more restrctive than the GPL; it was added to
permit explicit statements to be preserved in the docs - we don't have
any such today, and I'd suggest staying with the GPL. The GFDL is
*harder* to distribute and work with.

-Rob
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 197 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
Url : https://lists.ubuntu.com/archives/bazaar/attachments/20090921/990bf8fb/attachment-0002.pgp