GNU GPL for doc -- Why?

[IIDA Yosiaki]

Werner Koch <wk@gnupg.org> writes:
>Right, however because this handbook is close related to some
>software, using the GPH is not that a bad idea.  There are quite a
>couple of books out, which use the GPL.  

  I don't get it.
  I do see many books which include copy of GNU GPL.  But
just including GPL in a book does not imply the whole book
is using GNU GPL.
  For example, GNU Emacs User Manual and GNU Emacs Lisp
Reference Manual both are close related to GNU Emacs and
they both include a section which is a copy of GNU GPL.  But
they are not using GNU GPL to protect themselves.  They have
their own permission notices, so that I am permitted to
translate them into Japanese.

  As far as I understand, translating into another natural
language is out of range covered by GNU GPL.

>RMS is working on a documenation license however he suggested to use
>the GPL for the handbook.
...

  I see.

>Regarding your translation, we should ask RMS.  Can you please do this
>and CC me and Mike <jashley@acm.org>.

  OK.  I will.
--
  iida