Hello, in opposite to slf4j logback is licensed under LGPL. I understand that both are compatible, but why is logback not released under a BSD-Style license like slf4j? Regards Boris
Hi Boris, SLF4J is licensed under an X11 type of license which is considered universal, in the sense both the Free Software Foundation and Apache Software Foundation deem it compatible with their respective licensed. I am not aware of any organization which has issues with the X11 license. Logback is licensed under LGPL because while its use is completely free, we would like logback extensions to be distributed under LGPL. The LGPL is widely accepted. One of the rare places where its frowned upon is the ASF. However, even ASF projects can use logback, as long as they do so behind SLF4J, which also happens to be the way recommended by logback. Does this answer your question? At 10:32 PM 9/11/2006, Boris Unckel wrote:
Hello,
in opposite to slf4j logback is licensed under LGPL. I understand that both are compatible, but why is logback not released under a BSD-Style license like slf4j?
Regards Boris
-- Ceki Gülcü Logback: The reliable, generic, fast and flexible logging framework for Java. http://ceki.blogspot.com/
Hello Ceki, -------- Original-Nachricht -------- Datum: Mon, 11 Sep 2006 23:04:25 +0200 Von: "Ceki Gülcü" <listid@qos.ch>
SLF4J is licensed under an X11 type of license which is considered universal, in the sense both the Free Software Foundation and Apache Software Foundation deem it compatible with their respective licensed. I am not aware of any organization which has issues with the X11 license.
I feel fine with the X11 license. It would be nice to have a HTML-link between the slf4j page "license" and http://www.opensource.org/ and the appropriate license there.
Logback is licensed under LGPL because while its use is completely free, we would like logback extensions to be distributed under LGPL. The LGPL is widely accepted. One of the rare places where its frowned upon is the ASF. However, even ASF projects can use logback, as long as they do so behind SLF4J, which also happens to be the way recommended by logback.
Does this answer your question?
Yes, fully. I just wondered about your move from Apache2.0 license (log4j), to X11 (slf4j), to LGPL (logback). Does this have personal reasons because you left the Apache-log4j public visibility after the rejected 1.2.10? (Please do not feel offended if I am wrong, it is just personal interest.) <Personal Opinion> To avoid flamewars when others read this message: Each open source project has good and valid reasons to choose its license type and concrete license. I am still a fan of the Apache2.0 license due to its less invasive character and the opportunity to allow commercial vendors to use/resell it when they like. I do not say that the <put your favourite here> license does not allow it or has better possibilities to do so or to be better for community purposes or ... </Personal Opinion> Regards Boris
At 03:59 PM 9/12/2006, Boris Unckel wrote: Hello Boris,
Yes, fully. I just wondered about your move from Apache2.0 license (log4j), to X11 (slf4j), to LGPL (logback). Does this have personal reasons because you left the Apache-log4j public visibility after the rejected 1.2.10? (Please do not feel offended if I am wrong, it is just personal interest.)
As surprising as it may sound, I felt that it would be easier to get things done outside the log4j project than within it, even at the cost of starting over and recapturing mind share. Logback offers pretty cool features, attracting users one at a time. :-) -- Ceki Gülcü Logback: The reliable, generic, fast and flexible logging framework for Java. http://ceki.blogspot.com/
participants (2)
-
Boris Unckel -
Ceki Gülcü