[rabbitmq-discuss] Licensing of librabbitmq

Alexis Richardson alexis.richardson at gmail.com
Tue Feb 9 13:42:16 GMT 2010


On Tue, Feb 9, 2010 at 11:09 AM, Marcus Eriksson <krummas at gmail.com> wrote:
>> 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?

MPL *can* be linked with GPL code, you just cannot then distribute the
whole package under the GPL.

GPL's virality only kicks in when derived works are distributed.

> http://www.fsf.org/licensing/licenses/index_html#MPL (ok maybe a bit biased
> source, but anyway)

Yes, the source is unhelpful.  Nonetheless in open source licensing it
is usually best to leave no room for doubt, uncertainty and fear.
("fudleft" ;-)

>> But that's all for the server.  I am thinking the easiest thing would
>> be to dual license the librabbitmq client.
> yep, sounds great!

I agree.  We'll look into this.

*For now* I suggest you license your own code however you like.
People wishing to run your code with Drizzle will have to build from
source and other annoyances due to the GPL/MPL impedance.



More information about the rabbitmq-discuss mailing list