Thanks for chiming in Emmanuel - it is much appreciated. I agree with Kalle - given that we can't list it as a dependency, I think we should just keep Log4J to avoid any hassle.
Best, Les On Thu, Sep 3, 2009 at 6:04 PM, Kalle Korhonen<[email protected]> wrote: > 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 >> >> >> >
