<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN">
<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html;charset=ISO-8859-1" http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#ffffff" text="#000000">
Robert Collins wrote:
<blockquote cite="mid:1253508165.4276.154.camel@lifeless-64" type="cite">
<pre wrap="">On Mon, 2009-09-21 at 14:26 +1000, Ian Clatworthy wrote:
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">Robert Collins wrote:
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">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.
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap="">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.
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap=""><!---->
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
</pre>
</blockquote>
Except that in many cases, company X would not want to, or cannot
provide the source for their training material (i.e. material may
contain copyrighted works that cannot be re-licensed as GPL)<br>
<br>
David<br>
</body>
</html>