Tom Lane wrote:
"Joshua D. Drake" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Alvaro Herrera <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 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
---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 3: Have you checked our extensive FAQ?
http://www.postgresql.org/docs/faq
