Is Bazaar's document distributed under GPL?

[Robert Collins]

On Mon, 2009-09-21 at 14:26 +1000, Ian Clatworthy wrote:
> Robert Collins wrote:
> 
> > 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.
> 
> My main concern is ensuring we don't unnecessarily restrict authors from
> creating training materials. Someone working at company X should be able
> to produce slides and tutorials with examples from the Bazaar docs,
> without worrying about whether inclusion of those examples makes those
> documents implicitly GPL.

But what if it does? They then need to do, as binary distributors do,
and provide the source.

That seems entirely reasonable to me, given that bzr itself is copyleft.

-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/d3242f91/attachment-0002.pgp