Christian,
When you say "we would logback", it's not exactly clear what you mean.
Anyway, to answer your question, Logback is dual licensed under LGPL
and EPL per the licensee's choosing. Both licenses are reciprocal,
but the LGPL has a legal clause requiring the client code to authorize
debugging which the ASF does not deem acceptable. LGPL, in ASF
terminology, is an "excluded license". Since logback is EPLed, it can
be used by Apache projects in binary form but with respect to derivative
works, for example if you copy a logback source file and incorporate
it into log4j, the said work would need to be distributed under the
EPL.
Even if logback was licensed under the Apache Software License, you
still can't change the copyright attributions because even the Apache
Software License requires that existing copyright notices be preserved.
For the definition of "reciprocal" and "excluded" as well as other 3rd
party licenses, see
http://www.apache.org/legal/3party.html
In short, copying source code from an open-source project licensed
under any "common" open-source license (GPL, LGPL, ASL, EPL, MPL,
BSD..) *and* removing existing copyright notices is not allowed.
I don't see how one could comfortably import logback into
the ASF without a software grant by the copyright holders. Frankly,
given the current state of the log4j community, I don't see that
happening.
As I stated before, the java platform is sorely in need of
consolidation with respect to logging. We are getting there, slowly
but surely. Nevertheless, it would help if log4j natively adopted the
SLF4J API. There were many opportunities for this happening. Actually,
in 2004, SLF4J (called UGLI at the time) was part of log4j.
Unfortunately, continuous obstructions placed by certain unnamed
parties for the adoption of SLF4J as log4j's client-facing API was the
main reason why I personally stopped working on log4j and started the
logback project instead. Anyway, almost 5 years passed since that
time, and I my expectations regarding the resolution of this matter
are rather low. Anyway, it's a different topic altogether...
--
Ceki
http://logback.qos.ch: the reliable, generic, fast and flexible logging
framework.
On 19/02/2010 7:06 PM, Christian Grobmeier wrote:
Hi,
we had already "copyright" discussion with code from logback in this
list. If we would logback - that would mean that we need to incubate
it. I think there is an interest here. I am just a little afraid
before copyright discussion.
So - Ceki, can you help here once again. Sorry for asking dump. From
your side, if we would logback - are there any copyright problems we
should be aware of before discussion any further? I was thinking on
this "prudent" fix I need to dig more in it.
Cheers
Christian
On Fri, Feb 12, 2010 at 6:46 AM, Curt Arnold<[email protected]> wrote:
On Feb 10, 2010, at 3:44 PM, Gary Gregory wrote:
Since logback is licensed under EPL 1, does it matter who brings it to Apache?
IOW, does the license allow for the code to be copied and repackaged as
org.apache?
Gary
I'm pretty sure that it would require a license grant by each of the
contributors. But that would be a incubator/legal question if that were to be
seriously considered.
I'll write more the weekend.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected]
For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected]
For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected]
For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]
