The client libraries appear to be dual-licensed under MPL 1.1 and GPL v2. Since the component never calls the RabbitMQ client libraries directly (and doesn't even mark them as an immediate dependency) does that still constitute a conflict? spring-amqp does pull in the client libraries, but camel-spring-amqp does not. This would seem to isolate the component from MPL 1.1 compatibility but I'm not sure about the GPL constraints (since it's not LGPL). Then again, I'm not as familiar with the licensing constraints either. I know the ActiveMQ project recently had an issue with /distributing/ a library under an incompatible license, but does an indirect Maven dependency constitute redistribution?
Ashwin Karpe wrote: > > Unless I am mistaken, RabbitMQ is released under the Mozilla Public > License 1.1. This license version is not compatible with Apache License > v2.0. There was talk of having a compatible Mozilla Public License v 2.0. > If Rabbit MQ is available under Mozilla License 2.0 my sense is that it > should be fine. > > I believe that the MPL 1.1 license will lead to complications in terms of > contributing the code to the Apache Camel project. > -- View this message in context: http://camel.465427.n5.nabble.com/Writing-own-Camel-Components-tp4969523p4979142.html Sent from the Camel - Users mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
