Author: ceki Date: Sun Aug 10 23:28:26 2008 New Revision: 1753 Modified: logback/trunk/logback-site/src/site/pages/faq.html Log: added an entry about the choice of LGPL Modified: logback/trunk/logback-site/src/site/pages/faq.html ============================================================================== --- logback/trunk/logback-site/src/site/pages/faq.html (original) +++ logback/trunk/logback-site/src/site/pages/faq.html Sun Aug 10 23:28:26 2008 @@ -20,12 +20,20 @@ <div id="content"> <h2> - <a name="top">Logback Frequently Asked Questions</a> + <a name="top">Frequently Asked Questions</a> </h2> + + <h3>Logback project</h3> + + <ol type="1"> + <li><a href="#why_lgpl">Why is logback distributed under LGPL and + not the Apache Software License?</a> + </li> + </ol> + - <p> - <b>Logback Classic</b> - </p> + <h3>Logback Classic</h3> + <ol type="1"> <li> @@ -51,7 +59,31 @@ </ol> <div class="section"> - <h2>Logback Classic</h2> + <h2>Logback project</h2> + + <dl> + <dt> <a name="why_lgpl">Why is logback distributed under LGPL and + not the Apache Software License?</a> + </dt> + + <dd> + <p>The logback project is distributed under the LGPL license + in order to emphasize the fact that it is a related but + <em>different</em> project than log4j. + </p> + + <p>Given that Java v7 will be distributed under GPL, we expect + GPL and LGPL to become even more prevalent in the Java world. + </p> + + <p>In short, LGPL is a reasonable and widely-accepted + license. Let well alone. + </p> + </dd> + </dl> + </div> + <div class="section"> + <h2>Logback-classic</h2> <dl> <dt> <a name="setup_jetty">