Thanks Ceki for your long and detailled answer. You are right, i missed a word out in my mail - I meant "if we would take logback as base for new development", as you suggested in a previous mail (so i understood it).
However. if you are not willing to contribute logback with a software grant, then of course the "use logback" discussion can stop now. I understood that you were thinking about donating but have changed your mind. To be honest, even when I think that logback is very well and it would do fine as Log4J 2, there might be other discussions which could lead to frustrations on several sides. I think on discussions like having author tags and such. Having in mind that there is some heat in all the discussion on this list, I also think this isn't the right time for contributing logback. However - we (all who are interested in continuing log4j) need to discuss other options. Using SLF4J as native interface or not might be the next discussion. Looking at the current code we currently have is the next one. Cheers Christian On Fri, Feb 19, 2010 at 7:59 PM, Ceki Gülcü <[email protected]> wrote: > 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] > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]
