Received: from makus.postgresql.org (makus.postgresql.org [98.129.198.125])
	by mail.postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 722D76FED3
	for <pgsql-docs@postgresql.org>; Tue, 19 Jun 2012 18:17:07 -0300 (ADT)
Received: from mailout-de.gmx.net ([213.165.64.22])
	by makus.postgresql.org with smtp (Exim 4.72)
	(envelope-from <peter_e@gmx.net>) id 1Sh5nK-00020J-TN
	for pgsql-docs@postgresql.org; Tue, 19 Jun 2012 21:17:06 +0000
Received: (qmail invoked by alias); 19 Jun 2012 21:16:49 -0000
Received: from a88-115-214-103.elisa-laajakaista.fi (EHLO [10.0.0.103])
	[88.115.214.103]
	by mail.gmx.net (mp004) with SMTP; 19 Jun 2012 23:16:49 +0200
X-Authenticated: #495269
X-Provags-ID: V01U2FsdGVkX19HemFg1O1HKofv1EAsSYwE1MKNzODDpz3bef7t2a
	nozWXoYIHSZzq4
Message-ID: <1340140601.26286.28.camel@vanquo.pezone.net>
Subject: Re: outdated legal notice in SGML docs?
From: Peter Eisentraut <peter_e@gmx.net>
To: Stefan Kaltenbrunner <stefan@kaltenbrunner.cc>
Cc: pgsql-docs@postgresql.org
Date: Wed, 20 Jun 2012 00:16:41 +0300
In-Reply-To: <4FB56426.7050409@kaltenbrunner.cc>
References: <4FB56426.7050409@kaltenbrunner.cc>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
X-Mailer: Evolution 3.2.2-1+b1 
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Mime-Version: 1.0
X-Y-GMX-Trusted: 0
X-Pg-Spam-Score: -1.9 (-)
X-Archive-Number: 201206/7
X-Sequence-Number: 7366

On tor, 2012-05-17 at 16:48 -0400, Stefan Kaltenbrunner wrote:
> 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 noticed that we seem to ship with outdated legal information in the docs.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=postgresql.git;a=blob_plain;f=COPYRIGHT;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/static/LEGALNOTICE.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.

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.

> 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/static/LEGALNOTICE.html
> 
> will have 2009 for 8.4.11 which was released in 2012...
> 
> any thoughts on what the correct way to fix this is?

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.