Thread: outdated legal notice in SGML docs?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 While working on automating our PDF doc building for the website I noticed that we seem to ship with outdated legal information in the docs.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seems to be wrong in all branches and has the additional problem that the Copyright year on the backbranches is always out-of-date - for example: http://www.postgresql.org/docs/8.4/static/LEGALNOTICE.html will have 2009 for 8.4.11 which was released in 2012...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
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 noticed that we seem to ship with outdated legal information in the docs.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 that the Copyright year on the backbranches is always out-of-date - for 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.
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. +
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
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.
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. +