Received: from localhost (postgresql.org [64.49.215.8]) by postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 217C9476078 for ; Sat, 4 Jan 2003 05:24:11 -0500 (EST) Received: from mail.gmx.net (mail.gmx.net [213.165.64.20]) by postgresql.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 9E6C84762B6 for ; Sat, 4 Jan 2003 05:21:54 -0500 (EST) Received: (qmail 4966 invoked by uid 0); 4 Jan 2003 10:21:52 -0000 Received: from pd902f0a0.dip0.t-ipconnect.de (217.2.240.160) by mail.gmx.net (mp013-rz3) with SMTP; 4 Jan 2003 10:21:52 -0000 Date: Sat, 4 Jan 2003 11:30:17 +0100 (CET) From: Peter Eisentraut X-X-Sender: peter@localhost.localdomain To: Roberto Mello Cc: pgsql-docs@postgresql.org Subject: Re: Documentation in book length In-Reply-To: <20030103040840.GD18675@cc.usu.edu> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII X-Virus-Scanned: by AMaViS new-20020517 X-Archive-Number: 200301/13 X-Sequence-Number: 1613 Roberto Mello writes: > As far as my understanding of the BSD license applied to documents allows > anyone to modify said documents, saved the copyright notices are left. > However, it is very uncool to remove authorship credits from the > documentation. I don't see how removing such credits will make the Red Hat > DB documentation look any better or more "professional". It's not particularly fair, but we should discuss it. Either we consistently attribute every section or chapter, or we don't do it. I could probably put names on most chapters from memory and I wouldn't mind it, but it does seem like an unusual thing to have names on only a few sections. Maybe it would be a good compromise to record significant documentation work in the release notes with the usual attribution? -- Peter Eisentraut peter_e@gmx.net