On Thu, Jan 10, 2019 at 12:43 PM John Cowan <co...@ccil.org> wrote: > > On Thu, Jan 10, 2019 at 11:36 AM Gil Yehuda via License-discuss < > license-discuss@lists.opensource.org> wrote: > >> When I read this, I interpret *intimate data communication* as the >> relationship between a database driver and a database. That's the role of a >> driver -- to have intimate communications with the DB so that your calling >> application can bind to the driver, not the DB. I'm asking this group: is >> my interpretation sound? >> >> > I would interpret it much more narrowly as communication via shared > memory: the caller and callee share data structures directly rather than > serialized representations of them passed over a pipe of some sort. A > SQLite database is in intimate communication with its driver; most other > databases, because they run in separate processes and communicate over > sockets, are not. The FSF's discussion of static and dynamic linking (they > consider them equivalent) seems to reinforce this interpretation. >
John's understanding is also mine; a well-defined interface is not "intimate" in the sense meant here. But not sure I'd want to rely on that if I were a business, of course. Luis
_______________________________________________ License-discuss mailing list License-discuss@lists.opensource.org http://lists.opensource.org/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss_lists.opensource.org
