Message-ID: <47A2AEFC.7060703@commandprompt.com>
Date: Thu, 31 Jan 2008 21:32:44 -0800
From: "Joshua D. Drake" <jd@commandprompt.com>
Organization: Command Prompt, Inc.
User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.9 (Windows/20071031)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
CC: Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@commandprompt.com>,
	Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us>, Pavel Golub <pavel@gf.microolap.com>,
	pgsql-docs@postgresql.org
Subject: Re: Lack of docs for libpq C Library
References: <20080131180459.GI8602@alvh.no-ip.org>
	<200801312310.m0VNArL18565@momjian.us>
	<20080131231827.GL8602@alvh.no-ip.org>
	<20080131194536.41428f86@commandprompt.com>
	<17801.1201842607@sss.pgh.pa.us>
In-Reply-To: <17801.1201842607@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Tom Lane wrote:
> "Joshua D. Drake" <jd@commandprompt.com> writes:
>> Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@commandprompt.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