Hi!

While working on automating our PDF doc building for the website I
noticed that we seem to ship with outdated legal information in the docs.

http://www.postgresql.org/about/licence/

(this also matches up with:
http://git.postgresql.org/gitweb/?p=...YRIGHT;hb=HEAD)

seems to be our current licence text - however in the SGML docs we
actually have(pointer to the html generated source here):

http://www.postgresql.org/docs/9.2/s...GALNOTICE.html

which is differing in subtile ways (not mentioning the postgresql
licence but rather refering to a "licence from the university of
california") and also having different copyright year references/texts.

This seems to be wrong in all branches and has the additional problem
that the Copyright year on the backbranches is always out-of-date - for
example:

http://www.postgresql.org/docs/8.4/s...GALNOTICE.html

will have 2009 for 8.4.11 which was released in 2012...

any thoughts on what the correct way to fix this is?

Stefan

--
Sent via pgsql-docs mailing list (pgsql-docs (AT) postgresql (DOT) org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-docs

On tor, 2012-05-17 at 16:48 -0400, Stefan Kaltenbrunner wrote:
I removed the extra half sentence about the "license from the
university ...", which didn't really serve any purpose. I think the
rest is fine. The copyright notices don't need to be spelled exactly
the same, I think.

I think the COPYRIGHT file is wrong in that it claims UCB copyright only
until 1994.

I've fixed this in all the active back branches. The copyright tool in
src/tools/ does inform about doing these changes, but whoever does them
has apparently not read that.



--
Sent via pgsql-docs mailing list (pgsql-docs (AT) postgresql (DOT) org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-docs

On Wed, Jun 20, 2012 at 12:16:41AM +0300, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
I didn't think we wanted to update back branch copyright end dates
because that would effect thing like psql \copyright display, and the
risk didn't seem worth it.

Do we want back-branches updated in the future?

--
Bruce Momjian <bruce (AT) momjian (DOT) us> http://momjian.us
EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com

+ It's impossible for everything to be true. +

--
Sent via pgsql-docs mailing list (pgsql-docs (AT) postgresql (DOT) org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-docs

Bruce Momjian <bruce (AT) momjian (DOT) us> writes:
We have never done that in the past, and I don't think we should start
now. What I thought Peter was complaining about was that legal.sgml
had been missed in the *head* branch. However, a look in the git
history shows that hasn't happened since 2005, so it seems like the
current process is OK.

regards, tom lane

--
Sent via pgsql-docs mailing list (pgsql-docs (AT) postgresql (DOT) org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-docs

On tor, 2012-06-28 at 20:14 -0400, Bruce Momjian wrote:
I think we should update at least COPYRIGHT and doc/src/sgml/legal.sgml,
which are the most user-facing files. Updating all the source files is
probably not necessary.


--
Sent via pgsql-docs mailing list (pgsql-docs (AT) postgresql (DOT) org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-docs

On Sat, Jun 30, 2012 at 11:52:58PM +0300, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
OK, I updated the copyright tool to mention this for back branches.

--
Bruce Momjian <bruce (AT) momjian (DOT) us> http://momjian.us
EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com

+ It's impossible for everything to be true. +


--
Sent via pgsql-docs mailing list (pgsql-docs (AT) postgresql (DOT) org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-docs