<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=utf-8" http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
<p><br>
</p>
<br>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">Le 04/04/2017 à 22:18, Arthur Havlicek
a écrit :<br>
</div>
<blockquote
cite="mid:feb4f1a8-fe5b-1c88-626c-3b4c8bee1274@gmail.com"
type="cite">Hello collectd community
<br>
<br>
It seems my message from outside the mailing list didn't go
through, so I suscribed and will now repeat a question I had about
collectd plugins licencing.
<br>
<br>
I intend to build a business around this amazing tool, mostly
selling a collectd integration + plugins. AFAIK plugins in
collectd are compiled with the daemon making it a single binary,
as such it can be considered derivative work under a GPL licence.
<br>
<br>
I wanted to know whether a non-free licencing over a collectd
plugin was considered respectful of collectd licence in itself. I
expect this to be the original wish of collectd to enable as much
contributor as possible and allow they licence their work the way
they want, but I found no other example yet or documentation that
this is even possible to release a modified collectd package
containing non-free plugins which is restricted.
<br>
<br>
As I'm not a lawyer, I query explicit allowance from collectd
authors and strongly hope it is possible to distribute a plugin
with a non-free plugin as this would allow me to deploy efficient
applications without complex pipelining. Of course, non-free
licencing would only limit to the plugin and would still make me
liable of giving source code of collectd parts which are covered
by free licence.
<br>
<br>
Thank you for your help.
<br>
<br>
</blockquote>
Typo here<br>
strongly hope it is possible to distribute a <b>modified collectd
version </b>with a non-free plugin
</body>
</html>