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 noticed that we seem to ship with outdated legal information in the docs.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 that the Copyright year on the backbranches is always out-of-date - for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.