Hello all, After a very long investigation resulting in a better understanding of licensing issues, I think dual-licensing logback under EPL 1.0 and LGPL 2.1 would help with the project's adoption. Licensees can then choose either the terms of the EPL or the terms of the LGPL when they use logback. The EPL license will placate organizations which refuse the restrictions imposed by the LGPL whereas the LGPL license ensures continuity in licensing and also keeps the door open for licensees already bound by the terms of (L)GPL. Comments? ps. If you intend to respond, please do so on logback-users@. -- Ceki Gülcü Logback: The reliable, generic, fast and flexible logging framework for Java. http://logback.qos.ch
great idea for me the EPL fits much better into my own (EPL) licensing and it will be easier for eclipse-projects to use logback if its licensed by EPL ekke Ceki Gulcu schrieb:
Hello all,
After a very long investigation resulting in a better understanding of licensing issues, I think dual-licensing logback under EPL 1.0 and LGPL 2.1 would help with the project's adoption.
Licensees can then choose either the terms of the EPL or the terms of the LGPL when they use logback. The EPL license will placate organizations which refuse the restrictions imposed by the LGPL whereas the LGPL license ensures continuity in licensing and also keeps the door open for licensees already bound by the terms of (L)GPL.
Comments?
ps. If you intend to respond, please do so on logback-users@.
On Sep 17, 2009, at 10:07 AM, Ceki Gulcu wrote:
Hello all,
After a very long investigation resulting in a better understanding of licensing issues, I think dual-licensing logback under EPL 1.0 and LGPL 2.1 would help with the project's adoption.
Licensees can then choose either the terms of the EPL or the terms of the LGPL when they use logback. The EPL license will placate organizations which refuse the restrictions imposed by the LGPL whereas the LGPL license ensures continuity in licensing and also keeps the door open for licensees already bound by the terms of (L)GPL.
Comments?
I'll have to check with my corporate attorney but I am pretty sure the EPL will be an easier sell. I think dual licensing is a very good move. Ralph
On Thu, Sep 17, 2009 at 1:07 PM, Ceki Gulcu <ceki@qos.ch> wrote:
Hello all,
After a very long investigation resulting in a better understanding of licensing issues, I think dual-licensing logback under EPL 1.0 and LGPL 2.1 would help with the project's adoption.
Licensees can then choose either the terms of the EPL or the terms of the LGPL when they use logback. The EPL license will placate organizations which refuse the restrictions imposed by the LGPL whereas the LGPL license ensures continuity in licensing and also keeps the door open for licensees already bound by the terms of (L)GPL.
Comments?
ps. If you intend to respond, please do so on logback-users@.
-- 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
I agree that this would be a positive move. -- Stephen Duncan Jr www.stephenduncanjr.com
participants (4)
-
Ceki Gulcu -
ekkehard -
Ralph Goers -
Stephen Duncan Jr