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.

Right, it seems like it would be archive.org's problem.

> 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

Did you see Alvaro's archive.org URL that showed it was the same in
September, 2006?

> 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.
>
> 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.

I found it useful and I think others will as well. Agreed it is not
critical, but does a URL have to be critical to be on our docs.

--
Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> http://momjian.us
EnterpriseDB http://postgres.enterprisedb.com

+ If your life is a hard drive, Christ can be your backup. +