I'll echo Luis' comment there; a 'well-defined' interface which has only one implementation in existence anywhere in the known universe may very well *not* be a licensing boundary.
On Thu, Jan 10, 2019 at 3:50 PM Luis Villa <l...@lu.is> wrote: > > 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 _______________________________________________ License-discuss mailing list License-discuss@lists.opensource.org http://lists.opensource.org/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss_lists.opensource.org
