Re: Lack of docs for libpq C Library

Tom Lane wrote:
> "Joshua D. Drake" <jd(at)commandprompt(dot)com> writes:
>> Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com> wrote:
>>> The point is that archive.org will keep that copy online even if
>>> hp.com decides to shut it down or change it.
>
>> There is a question to the legality of the archive.org copy. The legal
>> notice of the document states that there must be a valid license for
>> the product to copy.
>
>> *IF* we link that document, we need to link to the HP site.
>
> Uh, this is nonsense. Even if archive.org is violating HP's copyright
> (a point un-tested at law), we cannot be violating anything by which
> URL we choose to point to.

I think you missed my point :). My point was if HP got snarky about it,
the link would die. Whereas it is likely that HP would keep their link
up (in theory of course).

>
> The main problem with using the link as it stands is that it is *highly*
> unlikely that it will remain valid for the lifespan of the PG 8.3
> documentation (let alone subsequent versions). I've been dealing with
> HP's website for many years and I have good reason to know that page
> URLs of the kind that Bruce has chosen to quote do not have long shelf
> lives.

Not arguing with this. I just think if we are going to link it, we
should link the authoritative source.

>
> Personally I would vote for not having the link there at all. It is not
> adding anything very critical to our docs, it is likely to be broken
> soon (for some value of soon), and if there is any question about the
> legality then that's just frosting on the cake.

It seems to me that if we are going to have the information we need to
have it from a source that is reasonably guaranteed to be maintained. If
we don't trust that HP will do that then I would agree that we should
leave the link out.

Sincerely,

Joshua D. Drake