Ceki Gulcu wrote: > Ralph Goers wrote: > >> Actually, Apache wouldn't have a problem with Logback under the LGPL. It >> just can't distribute it or host it. As you know, many projects are >> already using SLF4J. Obviously, it is very easy to tell users what to do >> to use Logback. The legal committee allows the use of LGPL'd software >> in exactly these kinds of circumstances. Since users are free to choose >> from multiple implementations there isn't any restriction that Logback >> can't be one of them. This discussion has come up many times. The LGPL >> is not really a problem where the use of the component is optional. >> > > "Can't distribute and host it" is pretty restrictive isn't it? If you can't > distribute it, this implies that you cannot depend on it, right? > No. A project can list it as a maven dependency. In the case of Logback vs Log4j this could be handled using profiles. > I was also under the impression that the ASF was queasy about such indirect > dependencies... > Not really. It just depends on the circumstances. > > >> The point of the GPL and LGPL is that users who use the library and make >> modifications must publish those modifications if they wish to >> distribute their work. This is really more of an impact in a commercial >> setting than in the ASF. Even then there are a lot of cases where it >> isn't a problem. But some companies simply won't allow or don't want the >> "hassle" of making whatever custom filters, appenders, etc they have >> created available to their customers. Those are the people you will lose >> out on. >> > > Does this apply to your company by any chance? > > No. But it is one of the reasons I submit my enhancements back to you. We don't distribute the software the software using logback so it isn't really a problem in any case. >> I doubt anyone would seriously consider forking the Logback project and >> then supporting it themselves, even if it was licensed under something >> like the MIT license. It just doesn't make sense to do that to a project >> that is actively being maintained, such as Logback is. I work with the >> Liferay portal, which is licensed under the MIT license. They are doing >> quite well. In fact, Sun is now partnering with them to jointly develop >> the code. Sun certainly had the option of taking Liferay's code and then >> forking it, but it just made no business sense to do that. >> >> The bottom line here is that you choose the license you want for a >> reason. I'm trying to understand how the LGPL provides more benefit to >> you vs any other license you could pick. You've not really answered that >> question. >> > > LGPL is just a different and widely-accepted license, that's all. > So are MIT, Apache, BSD, etc. Yet you didn't choose one of them or one of many other licenses listed at the open source initiatives site. Surely you had more of a reason than that.
Ralph _______________________________________________ logback-dev mailing list [email protected] http://qos.ch/mailman/listinfo/logback-dev
