[rabbitmq-discuss] Licensing of librabbitmq

[Marcus Eriksson]

On Tue, Feb 9, 2010 at 10:08 AM, Alexis Richardson <
alexis.richardson at gmail.com> wrote:

> Marcus
>
> On Tue, Feb 9, 2010 at 8:55 AM, Marcus Eriksson <krummas at gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >>
> >> 1. if your plugin must be distributed with Drizzle?
> >
> > Not really, but it would be nice of course. The long term plan for
> drizzle
> > is to have a plugin site where users can download plugins
> > (like https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/).
>
> OK.  So, in fact the only (perceived) inconsistencies between GPL and
> MPL arise when there is 'redistribution' of the code.  So you could
> license your plugin as MPL and people could use it with Drizzle, no
> problem.  I am not recommending this btw.  It's one option.
>

But the fact that MPL code cannot be linked against GPL code?
http://www.fsf.org/licensing/licenses/index_html#MPL (ok maybe a bit biased
source, but anyway)


>
>
> >> 2. how your plugin uses librabbitmq?
> >
> >
> http://bazaar.launchpad.net/~krummas/drizzle/rabbitmq/annotate/head:/plugin/rabbitmq/rabbitmq_handler.cc
> > May I ask why you picked MPL? I'm a total newbie on licensing issues, but
> to
> > me it feels quite hostile, I would expect client libs to be as open as
> > possible to enable more products using the "main" product.
>
> MPL is a very open license and not (IMO) in any way 'hostile'.
>
> There were lots of reasons, not least that Erlang uses MPL.   But we
> also liked its mix of copyleft (on lines of code but not, unlike GPL,
> whole packages) and liberal copyright.  MPL is a lot like LGPL, but
> unlike LGPL is quite clearly written.  It's also like EPL but without
> the need to join the ESF ;-)
>
> But that's all for the server.  I am thinking the easiest thing would
> be to dual license the librabbitmq client.
>

yep, sounds great!

/Marcus
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.rabbitmq.com/pipermail/rabbitmq-discuss/attachments/20100209/13c80755/attachment.htm