From: | Stefan Kaltenbrunner <stefan(at)kaltenbrunner(dot)cc> |
---|---|
To: | pgsql-docs(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | outdated legal notice in SGML docs? |
Date: | 2012-05-17 20:48:38 |
Message-ID: | 4FB56426.7050409@kaltenbrunner.cc |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | 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noticed that we seem to ship with outdated legal information in the docs.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that the Copyright year on the backbranches is always out-of-date - for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
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | febin jacob | 2012-05-18 06:12:56 | Can i add the debug option after installation |
Previous Message | Marcelo Sena | 2012-05-14 00:08:57 | Re: Observation on integer types documentation |