<br><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Tue, Feb 9, 2010 at 10:08 AM, Alexis Richardson <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:alexis.richardson@gmail.com">alexis.richardson@gmail.com</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex;">
Marcus<br>
<div class="im"><br>
On Tue, Feb 9, 2010 at 8:55 AM, Marcus Eriksson <<a href="mailto:krummas@gmail.com">krummas@gmail.com</a>> wrote:<br>
><br>
>><br>
>> 1. if your plugin must be distributed with Drizzle?<br>
><br>
> Not really, but it would be nice of course. The long term plan for drizzle<br>
> is to have a plugin site where users can download plugins<br>
> (like�<a href="https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/" target="_blank">https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/</a>).<br>
<br>
</div>OK. �So, in fact the only (perceived) inconsistencies between GPL and<br>
MPL arise when there is 'redistribution' of the code. �So you could<br>
license your plugin as MPL and people could use it with Drizzle, no<br>
problem. �I am not recommending this btw. �It's one option.<br></blockquote><div><br></div><div>But the fact that MPL code cannot be linked against GPL code?�</div><div><a href="http://www.fsf.org/licensing/licenses/index_html#MPL">http://www.fsf.org/licensing/licenses/index_html#MPL</a> (ok maybe a bit biased source, but anyway)</div>
<div><br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex;"><div class="im"><br>
<br>
<br>
>> 2. how your plugin uses librabbitmq?<br>
><br>
> <a href="http://bazaar.launchpad.net/~krummas/drizzle/rabbitmq/annotate/head:/plugin/rabbitmq/rabbitmq_handler.cc" target="_blank">http://bazaar.launchpad.net/~krummas/drizzle/rabbitmq/annotate/head:/plugin/rabbitmq/rabbitmq_handler.cc</a><br>
> May I ask why you picked MPL? I'm a total newbie on licensing issues, but to<br>
> me it feels quite hostile, I would expect client libs to be as open as<br>
> possible to enable more products using the "main" product.<br>
<br>
</div>MPL is a very open license and not (IMO) in any way 'hostile'.<br>
<br>
There were lots of reasons, not least that Erlang uses MPL. � But we<br>
also liked its mix of copyleft (on lines of code but not, unlike GPL,<br>
whole packages) and liberal copyright. �MPL is a lot like LGPL, but<br>
unlike LGPL is quite clearly written. �It's also like EPL but without<br>
the need to join the ESF ;-)<br>
<br>
But that's all for the server. �I am thinking the easiest thing would<br>
be to dual license the librabbitmq client.<br></blockquote><div><br></div><div>yep, sounds great!</div><div><br></div><div>/Marcus</div></div>