Is Bazaar's document distributed under GPL?

[Robert Collins]

On Mon, 2009-09-21 at 12:36 +1000, Martin Pool wrote:
> 
>  - Canonical's policy states a preference for CC-BY-SA (sharealike, ie
> a kind of copyleft iiuc) -- is that better or worse for our purposes
> than CC-BY?

Neither is better or worse AFAICT; the code is GPL; we can copy from
CC-BY or CC-BY-SA to the codebase, but not the other way around.

>  - Should we move all our docs to be CC-BY-SA or CC-BY?  Consistency
> seems good.  There may be some questions about docs autogenerated from
> code etc but they should be soluble.
> 
>  - Should/can it be dual CC/GPL?  Is that even possible?
>
>  - What is the FSF's opinion?
> 
>  - What is Canonical's opinion?

Good questions :)

> "All docs are CC-BY-SA and GPL, all code is GPL" is fairly clear and
> simple.

If we do that, we still can't copy from the code to the docs.

> > For instance, you cannot copy documentation in from the user manual
> into
> > the migration guide without relicencing the migration guide. And
> ditto
> > for help topics in the code itself
> >
> > I think its a very good idea to use a single licence across the
> whole
> > suite, to avoid such problems.
> 
> Meaning the code and documentation?  I see your point but that seems
> to lock us to GPL, since a non-copyleft licence for the code is not on
> the cards. 

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.

-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/20090921/74d66c6a/attachment-0002.pgp