Today I've d-loaded PostgreSQL 7.3.4.
I've seen in
$PGSQLD/doc/html/index.html
it still says
Copyright (C) 1996-2002
shouldn't it be 2003?

Regards, Christoph

PS
I've sent this to pgsql-docs@postgresql.org before.
But in return I've got
Your message to pgsql-docs has been delayed, and requires the approval
of the moderators, for the following reason(s):

The author (Christoph Haller <ch@rodos.fzk.de>)
  is not a member of any of the restrict_post groups.



Fri, 15 Aug 2003 16:26:01 +0200
Christoph Haller <ch@rodos.fzk.de>
Copyright (C) 1996-2002
Christoph Haller <ch@rodos.fzk.de> writes:
> Today I've d-loaded PostgreSQL 7.3.4.
> I've seen in
> $PGSQLD/doc/html/index.html
> it still says
> Copyright (C) 1996-2002
> shouldn't it be 2003?

We only update the copyright notices when we are preparing a major
release.  (Bruce just did it a week or two back for 7.4, for example.)
Updating for minor releases would create a lot of churn in the stable
CVS branches, for little purpose.

			regards, tom lane

Fri, 15 Aug 2003 14:40:42 -0400
Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Re: Copyright (C) 1996-2002 
>> Today I've d-loaded PostgreSQL 7.3.4.
>> I've seen in
>> $PGSQLD/doc/html/index.html
>> it still says
>> Copyright (C) 1996-2002
>> shouldn't it be 2003?
> 
> We only update the copyright notices when we are preparing a major
> release.  (Bruce just did it a week or two back for 7.4, for example.)
> Updating for minor releases would create a lot of churn in the stable
> CVS branches, for little purpose.

    	I'm curious, has anyone consulted with a lawyer on this?

    	(We wouldn't want SCO to sue PostgreSQL for this!  =D  Heheh.)

-- 
Randolf Richardson - rr@8x.ca
Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada

Please do not eMail me directly when responding
to my postings in the newsgroups.

Tue, 25 Nov 2003 06:32:05 +0000 (UTC)
Randolf Richardson <rr@8x.ca>
Re: Copyright (C) 1996-2002
Le Mardi 25 Novembre 2003 07:32, Randolf Richardson a écrit :
> I'm curious, has anyone consulted with a lawyer on this?

Yes, the lawyer concluded that the number "2003" had been both registered as a 
trademark and a patented invention. Therefore, it is very likely that 
Humanity will be able to jump directly to the next non-registered digit, 
which is the year 200440033, called 'year of innovation', which also happens 
to be the price asked by the lawyer for bringing us into the future.

Jean-Michel


Tue, 2 Dec 2003 12:56:08 +0100
Jean-Michel POURE <jm@poure.com>
Re: Copyright (C) 1996-2002
"jm@poure.com (Jean-Michel POURE)" stated in
comp.databases.postgresql.hackers: 

> Le Mardi 25 Novembre 2003 07:32, Randolf Richardson a écrit :
>> I'm curious, has anyone consulted with a lawyer on this?
> 
> Yes, the lawyer concluded that the number "2003" had been both
> registered as a trademark and a patented invention. Therefore, it is
> very likely that Humanity will be able to jump directly to the next
> non-registered digit, which is the year 200440033, called 'year of
> innovation', which also happens to be the price asked by the lawyer for
> bringing us into the future. 
> 
> Jean-Michel

    	Heheh!  I think you should ask that lawyer for your money back because 
his conclusions are questionable.  Also, if the lawyer charged you for 
"bringing you into the future," then that in itself is also questionable 
unless he/she is able to travel through time.  ;-D

-- 
Randolf Richardson - rr@8x.ca
Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada

"We are anti-spammers.  You will confirm
subscriptions.  Resistance is futile."

Please do not eMail me directly when responding
to my postings in the newsgroups.

Sun, 25 Jan 2004 01:40:59 +0000 (UTC)
Randolf Richardson <rr@8x.ca>
Re: Copyright (C) 1996-2002