[rabbitmq-discuss] Licensing of librabbitmq
krummas at gmail.com
Tue Feb 9 11:09:52 GMT 2010
On Tue, Feb 9, 2010 at 10:08 AM, Alexis Richardson <
alexis.richardson at gmail.com> wrote:
> 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
> > 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?
> > May I ask why you picked MPL? I'm a total newbie on licensing issues, but
> > 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!
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the rabbitmq-discuss