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