[rabbitmq-discuss] Licensing of librabbitmq

Alexis Richardson alexis.richardson at gmail.com
Tue Feb 9 09:08:44 GMT 2010


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.

>> 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.


More information about the rabbitmq-discuss mailing list