[License-discuss] Intimacy in open source
luis at lu.is
Thu Jan 10 20:49:33 UTC 2019
On Thu, Jan 10, 2019 at 12:43 PM John Cowan <cowan at ccil.org> wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 10, 2019 at 11:36 AM Gil Yehuda via License-discuss <
> license-discuss at 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.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the License-discuss