pg.ddx.io pgsql-docs@postgresql.org mailing list archive
help / color / mirror / Atom feedoutdated legal notice in SGML docs?
6+ messages / 4 participants
[nested] [flat]
* outdated legal notice in SGML docs?
@ 2012-05-17 20:48 Stefan Kaltenbrunner <stefan@kaltenbrunner.cc>
2012-06-19 21:16 ` Re: outdated legal notice in SGML docs? Peter Eisentraut <peter_e@gmx.net>
0 siblings, 1 reply; 6+ messages in thread
From: Stefan Kaltenbrunner @ 2012-05-17 20:48 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: pgsql-docs
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noticed that we seem to ship with outdated legal information in the docs.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.
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that the Copyright year on the backbranches is always out-of-date - for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?
Stefan
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 6+ messages in thread
* Re: outdated legal notice in SGML docs?
2012-05-17 20:48 outdated legal notice in SGML docs? Stefan Kaltenbrunner <stefan@kaltenbrunner.cc>
@ 2012-06-19 21:16 ` Peter Eisentraut <peter_e@gmx.net>
2012-06-29 00:14 ` Re: outdated legal notice in SGML docs? Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us>
0 siblings, 1 reply; 6+ messages in thread
From: Peter Eisentraut @ 2012-06-19 21:16 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Stefan Kaltenbrunner <stefan@kaltenbrunner.cc>; +Cc: pgsql-docs
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 noticed that we seem to ship with outdated legal information in the docs.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.
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 6+ messages in thread
* Re: outdated legal notice in SGML docs?
2012-05-17 20:48 outdated legal notice in SGML docs? Stefan Kaltenbrunner <stefan@kaltenbrunner.cc>
2012-06-19 21:16 ` Re: outdated legal notice in SGML docs? Peter Eisentraut <peter_e@gmx.net>
@ 2012-06-29 00:14 ` Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us>
2012-06-29 02:12 ` Re: outdated legal notice in SGML docs? Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
2012-06-30 20:52 ` Re: outdated legal notice in SGML docs? Peter Eisentraut <peter_e@gmx.net>
0 siblings, 2 replies; 6+ messages in thread
From: Bruce Momjian @ 2012-06-29 00:14 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Peter Eisentraut <peter_e@gmx.net>; +Cc: Stefan Kaltenbrunner <stefan@kaltenbrunner.cc>; pgsql-docs
On Wed, Jun 20, 2012 at 12:16:41AM +0300, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> > 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.
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@momjian.us> http://momjian.us
EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com
+ It's impossible for everything to be true. +
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 6+ messages in thread
* Re: outdated legal notice in SGML docs?
2012-05-17 20:48 outdated legal notice in SGML docs? Stefan Kaltenbrunner <stefan@kaltenbrunner.cc>
2012-06-19 21:16 ` Re: outdated legal notice in SGML docs? Peter Eisentraut <peter_e@gmx.net>
2012-06-29 00:14 ` Re: outdated legal notice in SGML docs? Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us>
@ 2012-06-29 02:12 ` Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
1 sibling, 0 replies; 6+ messages in thread
From: Tom Lane @ 2012-06-29 02:12 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us>; +Cc: Peter Eisentraut <peter_e@gmx.net>; Stefan Kaltenbrunner <stefan@kaltenbrunner.cc>; pgsql-docs
Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> writes:
> On Wed, Jun 20, 2012 at 12:16:41AM +0300, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
>> 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.
> 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?
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
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 6+ messages in thread
* Re: outdated legal notice in SGML docs?
2012-05-17 20:48 outdated legal notice in SGML docs? Stefan Kaltenbrunner <stefan@kaltenbrunner.cc>
2012-06-19 21:16 ` Re: outdated legal notice in SGML docs? Peter Eisentraut <peter_e@gmx.net>
2012-06-29 00:14 ` Re: outdated legal notice in SGML docs? Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us>
@ 2012-06-30 20:52 ` Peter Eisentraut <peter_e@gmx.net>
2012-07-03 16:02 ` Re: outdated legal notice in SGML docs? Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us>
1 sibling, 1 reply; 6+ messages in thread
From: Peter Eisentraut @ 2012-06-30 20:52 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us>; +Cc: Stefan Kaltenbrunner <stefan@kaltenbrunner.cc>; pgsql-docs
On tor, 2012-06-28 at 20:14 -0400, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 20, 2012 at 12:16:41AM +0300, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> > > 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.
>
> 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?
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.
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 6+ messages in thread
* Re: outdated legal notice in SGML docs?
2012-05-17 20:48 outdated legal notice in SGML docs? Stefan Kaltenbrunner <stefan@kaltenbrunner.cc>
2012-06-19 21:16 ` Re: outdated legal notice in SGML docs? Peter Eisentraut <peter_e@gmx.net>
2012-06-29 00:14 ` Re: outdated legal notice in SGML docs? Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us>
2012-06-30 20:52 ` Re: outdated legal notice in SGML docs? Peter Eisentraut <peter_e@gmx.net>
@ 2012-07-03 16:02 ` Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 6+ messages in thread
From: Bruce Momjian @ 2012-07-03 16:02 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Peter Eisentraut <peter_e@gmx.net>; +Cc: Stefan Kaltenbrunner <stefan@kaltenbrunner.cc>; pgsql-docs
On Sat, Jun 30, 2012 at 11:52:58PM +0300, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> On tor, 2012-06-28 at 20:14 -0400, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> > On Wed, Jun 20, 2012 at 12:16:41AM +0300, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> > > > 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.
> >
> > 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?
>
> 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.
OK, I updated the copyright tool to mention this for back branches.
--
Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> http://momjian.us
EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com
+ It's impossible for everything to be true. +
Attachments:
copyright.diff (text/x-diff, 557B) download
diff --git a/src/tools/copyright.pl b/src/tools/copyright.pl
new file mode 100755
index d78a8d8..b8b8761
*** a/src/tools/copyright.pl
--- b/src/tools/copyright.pl
*************** sub wanted {
*** 51,55 ****
untie @lines;
}
! print "Manually update doc/src/sgml/legal.sgml and src/interfaces/libpq/libpq.rc.in too\n";
--- 51,56 ----
untie @lines;
}
! print "Manually update doc/src/sgml/legal.sgml and src/interfaces/libpq/libpq.rc.in too.\n";
! print "Also update ./COPYRIGHT and doc/src/sgml/legal.sgml in all back branches.\n";
end of thread, other threads:[~2012-07-03 16:02 UTC | newest]
Thread overview: 6+ messages (download: mbox mbox.gz follow: Atom feed)
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2012-05-17 20:48 outdated legal notice in SGML docs? Stefan Kaltenbrunner <stefan@kaltenbrunner.cc>
2012-06-19 21:16 ` Peter Eisentraut <peter_e@gmx.net>
2012-06-29 00:14 ` Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us>
2012-06-29 02:12 ` Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
2012-06-30 20:52 ` Peter Eisentraut <peter_e@gmx.net>
2012-07-03 16:02 ` Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us>
This inbox is served by DDX for PostgreSQL; see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox