I'd say too much trouble in that case, simpler just to continue to use log4j.
Kalle On Thu, Sep 3, 2009 at 2:57 PM, Emmanuel Lecharny<[email protected]> wrote: > Craig L Russell wrote: >> >> Hi Les, >> >> On Sep 3, 2009, at 11:48 AM, Les Hazlewood wrote: >> >>> Ah, interesting. I didn't realize it wasn't Apache licensed - sorry. >>> >>> But as Kalle said, we wouldn't be distributing it. This is the same >>> condition that we had with the Google Syntax Highlighter[1] usage >>> question that was raised (and approved) by the Incubator a while ago. >>> >>> As far as every developer getting it and installing it - that's >>> handled automatically by Maven since it would be declared in the >>> pom.xml file - it is in the M2 central repo to be pulled as soon as >>> the build needs it (surely just listing an LGPL file name in a pom >>> does not constitute 'distributing', right?). Is that good enough? >> >> Yes. As long as we never distribute Logback (including checking it into >> the shiro repository) it's ok to put it into the pom.xml as a test >> dependency. > > No. And this was discussed lenghtly on [email protected]. > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LEGAL-63 > > The user *must* use a flag if he wants to use logback during the build. Ie, > mvn -Pwith-logback, for instance, or mvn -Dwith-logback (you will have to > define a specific profile for that). > > Have a look at > http://mina.apache.org/developer-guide.html#DeveloperGuide-BuildingMINA, we > are allowing users to install a LGPL component and had to do that. > > -- > -- > cordialement, regards, > Emmanuel Lécharny > www.iktek.com > directory.apache.org > > >
