I think so, too. EPL license of logback wouldn't cause the protocol issue.
------------------ Sheng Wu Apache SkyWalking, ShardingSphere, Zipkin Twitter, wusheng1108 ------------------ Original ------------------ From: "Christofer Dutz"<[email protected]>; Date: Wed, Mar 13, 2019 04:30 PM To: "[email protected]"<[email protected]>; Subject: Re: Do we have a plan to release the first normal version of IoTDBthis month? The PLC4X podling uses logback too ... So it should be ok. I think being dual licensed, we could choose the license in that particular case. Chris Outlook f??r Android<https://aka.ms/ghei36> herunterladen ________________________________ From: ?????? Jialin Qiao <[email protected]> Sent: Wednesday, March 13, 2019 9:22:02 AM To: [email protected] Subject: Re: Do we have a plan to release the first normal version of IoTDB this month? Hi, Currently, we use logback as the implementation of slf4j log framwork, so it is included in our binary distribution. Link to logback: https://mvnrepository.com/artifact/ch.qos.logback/logback-classic However, logback has two license: EPL 1.0, LGPL 2.1. EPL 1.0 is allowed in the binary distribution, but LGPL 2.1 can't be included. In this case, can we use logback as a dependency? Thanks. -- Jialin Qiao School of Software, Tsinghua University ?????? ???????? ????????
