Ceki, What is the legal implication of using Logback through slf4j? Does this limit our obligations to slf4j's MIT license or does any aspect of logback's LGPL license pass through? Thank you, Gili Ceki Gulcu-2 wrote:
Hello Bruce,
The LGPL was chosen for a number of reasons. First, it is a relatively permissive license for those wishing to use logback as a logging library. Second, those who wish to extend logback can do so as long as they publish the results under the LGPL, a condition which I find quite reasonable. Third, the LGPL help to differentiate between log4j and logback as projects.
Moreover, given that logback is intended to be used behind the SLF4J API, client code does not come in direct contact with logback code. SLF4J is licensed under and MIT/X11 type of license. Thus, even organizations such the ASF which do not permit the use of LGPL licensed libraries, can use logback through SLF4J.
I hope this answers the question,
At 02:16 AM 12/27/2006, you wrote:
Log4J employs the Apache License and wound up being the inspiration for
the
entire Logging Project at the ASF, why was the LGPL chosen as the license to employ for Logback? --
-- Ceki Gülcü Logback: The reliable, generic, fast and flexible logging framework for Java. http://logback.qos.ch
_______________________________________________ Logback-user mailing list Logback-user@qos.ch http://qos.ch/mailman/listinfo/logback-user
-- View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/Why-LGPL-instead-of-Apache-License--tp8058617p19112373... Sent from the Logback User mailing list archive at Nabble.com.