Thanks for the clarification :) Gili
Ceki Gulcu wrote: > > > If you are just using logback, then I don't think you have any obligations > to > begin with. The question is then distinguishing between "just using" from > "extending". If you are accessing logback as a runtime implementation of > SLF4J, > then even under a conservative interpretation of LGPL, you are not linking > with > logback but with SLF4J. It follows that your "work in isolation, is not a > derivative work of the Library, and therefore falls outside the scope of > this > License [LGPL]." > > As I see it, it is pretty clear that you are only "just using" logback and > not > extending it. Thus, accessing logback via SLF4J limits LGPL's protective > (or > viral depending on your point of view) properties so that it does not > propagate > to your application. > > I hope this answers your question, > > cowwoc wrote: >> >> If my application is written against slf4j but I plug in logback at >> runtime >> as the logging implementation doesn't this somehow imply that my >> application >> is linking against logback and as such the LGPL applies? >> >> Gili >> > > -- > Ceki Gülcü > _______________________________________________ > Logback-user mailing list > [email protected] > http://qos.ch/mailman/listinfo/logback-user > > -- View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/Why-LGPL-instead-of-Apache-License--tp8058617p19123387.html Sent from the Logback User mailing list archive at Nabble.com. _______________________________________________ Logback-user mailing list [email protected] http://qos.ch/mailman/listinfo/logback-user
