Hello Arthur,
Not at all, no offense taken. I have not yet answered your question because I am
not sure about how to go about the answer. For one, notwithstanding several
prolonged attempts at understanding the various licenses, it is still not clear
to me what constitutes "derived" work and what constitutes "independent" work.
It may seem obvious but it's not.
Then, there is the question of intention. Do we want Big Iron (insert your least
favorite IT company here) to legally pirate an open source project, say logback?
At the same time, I see nothing wrong with other developers building extensions
on top of logback. There is no good answer.
As for the question, LGPL vs. ASL, the main idea is to mark the difference
between log4j and logback. Logback, although related to log4j, is a different
project. There is not necessarily a convincing or 100% rational argument behind
the choice.
I seems to me that GPL+classpath exception is likely to become quite popular,
given that the JDK v7 will be distributed under that license.
Cheers,
Arthur Blake wrote:
Ceki:
I hope I didn't offend with these questions about your licensing (the
lack of any answer leaves me wondering...)
The example "logblaster" might be a worst case scenario of someone
ripping off an open source project for commercial gain.
I certainly am not intending to make such a project -- more just probing
as to what the intent of your license is and how far it could be stretched.
I'm also really curious to know why you chose to switch from apache
(log4j) to LGPL (logback) -- for my own knowledge. I have several open
source projects, and it's always a headache trying to pick the right
license whenever I start a new project. I learned a lot about the ends
and outs from reading a few books on open source projects (especially
"Producing Open Source Software" by Karl Fogel), but it's still always
seems like a chore and a hassle to pick the right license.
Any insight into your thought process on picking the license would be
appreciated. If these questions are not appropriate for the list I
apologize and you can feel free to send me a private email.
----- Original Message ----
From: Arthur Blake <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: logback users list <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, April 8, 2008 3:04:01 PM
Subject: Re: [logback-user] GPL+Classpath exception
I guess what is more important to me is what you as the owner and
author, are intending to allow and disallow with the license...
For example, I think it's clear that you want to allow anyone to use
logback as a logging system in any kind of software... proprietary, open
source and otherwise.
But what if someone created a completely new logging system and called
it say "logblaster" that used logback as its core engine, but exposed
some other API on top of it (this could be done completely without
modifying logback-- just by including logback on the classpath) and
packaged logblaster for sale as a proprietary product. Is that
permissible?
A normal GPL license would not allow that... it would require
logblaster to be GPL too.
An Apache style license would allow it.
I think that technically even the GPL+classpath would allow that... but
is that something you would be against?
Do you want to allow extensions like that or not?
BTW: interesting article here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GPL_linking_exception
----- Original Message ----
From: Ceki Gulcu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: logback users list <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, April 8, 2008 2:09:16 PM
Subject: Re: [logback-user] GPL+Classpath exception
IANAL, but it seems to me that both LGPL and GPL+classpath do not
allow for direct extensions to be distributed under another
license. However, combined and independent work (as in work merely
using logback) is not affected by the provisions of the LGPL or
GPL+classpath.
As I understand it, the objections against the LGPL are due to the
fuzzy nature of the extend to which the LGPL applies. I hate to admit
that even with the classpath exception the meaning of "independent" is
not 100% clear. IMHO, the LGPL does not fair any better.
Arthur Blake wrote:
> I absolutely agree that LGPL or GPL+classpath are valid and reasonable
> licenses... it just makes it a little less business friendly.
>
> Does the GPL+classpath allow for writing extensions and plugins for
> logback that I can license as a non-copyleft license (apache /BSD/X11 or
> closed source)?
>
--
Ceki Gülcü
QOS.ch <http://QOS.ch> is looking to hire talented developers in
Switzerland. If
interested, please contact c e k i @ q o s . c h
_______________________________________________
Logback-user mailing list
[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>
http://qos.ch/mailman/listinfo/logback-user
------------------------------------------------------------------------
You rock. That's why Blockbuster's offering you one month of Blockbuster
Total Access
<http://us.rd.yahoo.com/evt=47523/*http://tc.deals.yahoo.com/tc/blockbuster/text5.com>,
No Cost.
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com
------------------------------------------------------------------------
_______________________________________________
Logback-user mailing list
[email protected]
http://qos.ch/mailman/listinfo/logback-user
--
Ceki Gülcü
QOS.ch is looking to hire talented developers in Switzerland. If
interested, please contact c e k i @ q o s . c h
_______________________________________________
Logback-user mailing list
[email protected]
http://qos.ch/mailman/listinfo/logback-user
