On Tue, Aug 23, 2016 at 10:31 PM, Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> wrote:
On Tue, Aug 23, 2016 at 10:12:14PM +0200, Magnus Hagander wrote: > I understand Postgres Pro had to invest resources to do the translation, > and understand their desire to restrict access. However, I think we > need to be clear on exactly what those restrictions are if we are going > to keep a link from our website. > > We are not. We are already linking, that part is taken care of. As a general > rule I think it'd be good if these things are clarified for visitors there > though, but that's independent of us linking to it.
Really? We will link to documentation with any license? I was saying to _continue_ our linking, we should research this.
Sorry, re-reading we're saying basically thes same thing.
> And actually, I think the web changes haven't been made. We had an example > that looks great. Or is it that we should update the link to point to the new > suggested url (adding the postgresql suffix)? I sort of lost track of that > part, but that should be an easy fix if that's going to be a permanent URL.
I don't know what the old URL looked like. You are right they have not updated it --- I saw "PostgreSQL" and thought that was it, but that is the Russian translation with the restricted lincense, and the "Postgres Pro" docs must be the docs for the proprietary fork of Postgres that
Yes. The change with the /postgresql suffix is that postgresql docs are put front and center, and the fork documentation is on a different page.
