Frankly, I'm not sure why you prefer LGPL over the Apache License. Are you concerned that Log4j will take parts of Logback?
Ceki Gulcu wrote: > Hi Joern, > > The licensing questions are extremely complex. It's one area I would > not want to get too creative. Most of the major project which use LGPL > use v2.1, e.g. Hibernate. Moreover, if someone is more comfortable with > LGPL v3, they can just use it, as the logback license reads: > > <quote> > This library is free software; you can redistribute it and/or modify it > under the terms of the GNU Lesser General Public License as published > by the Free Software Foundation; either version 2.1 of the License, or > (at your option) any later version. > </quote> > > So, there is no uncertainty, or considering the OSS licensing > mess, there is nothing but uncertainty as soon as you look into the > subject carefully. > > IANAL, > > > Joern Huxhorn wrote: > >> Hi Ceki, >> >> might I suggest to change the license from LGPL V2 to LGPL V3? >> >> The Apache Software License 2.0 isn't compatible with GPL2, only with >> GPL3, so software distributed using Apache Software License probably >> wouldn't be allowed to use logback. >> >> http://www.apache.org/licenses/GPL-compatibility.html >> http://www.fsf.org/licensing/licenses/#apache2 >> >> While LGPL allows the use of a later version as an option in its >> license text, I'm not really sure if this is sufficient to use it with >> ASL... >> >> Common sense indicates yes but the above link indicates no. >> >> I'm not sure about LGPL anyway because there only seems to be a >> problem with GPL. >> >> So if you don't see a problem with V3 it would be nice to just be >> explicit about it. Just to get rid of the uncertainty :) >> >> IANAL, >> Joern. >> >> _______________________________________________ logback-dev mailing list [email protected] http://qos.ch/mailman/listinfo/logback-dev
