Ceki Gulcu wrote: > > Ralph Goers wrote: >> Ceki Gulcu wrote: > >>> 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. > > MIT and BSD like Apache, except shorter. The LGPL is more assertive. I also > find > it morally acceptable and depending on the circumstance even desirable to > propagate LGPL to logback extensions. The ASF point of view, i.e no license > propagation, is also reasonable. > > I really wish the ASF and FSF could reach some sort of agreement and then > declare their licenses mutually compatible. The FSF has done that. The ASF > has > not. Given that it has taken over two years to settle on the patent clauses > of > the Apache license, I am not holding my breath. >
I'm not exactly an expert, in fact far from it (and most of the code I work on is closed) but - Why not simply dual-license? LGPL + Apache? Greetings, Lilianne _______________________________________________ logback-dev mailing list [email protected] http://qos.ch/mailman/listinfo/logback-dev
