Hello, Subsequent to a request on the pax-logging mailing list [1], Niclas Hedhman asked me whether we would add a "Classpath exception" to our LGPL license. In principle, I have no objections to adding such an exception. As such, I intend to add the following two paragraphs to logback's license statement. Classpath Exception According to the terms of LGPL, a "Combined Work" is a work produced by combining or linking an Application with logback (the Library). In section 4, the LGPL mandates that one may convey a Combined Work under terms of one's choice that, taken together, effectively do not restrict modification of the portions of the Library contained in the Combined Work and reverse engineering for debugging such modifications. As a special exception, the copyright holders of logback give you permission to link logback with independent modules to produce an executable, regardless of the license terms of these independent modules, and to copy and distribute the resulting executable under terms of your choice, provided that you also meet, for each linked independent module, the terms and conditions of the license of that module. An independent module is a module which is not derived from or based on logback. If you modify logback, you may extend this exception to your version of logback, but you are not obliged to do so. If you do not wish to do so, delete this exception statement from your version. Any comments? [1] http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.comp.java.ops4j.general/4636/focus=4637 -- Ceki Gülcü QOS.ch is looking to hire talented developers in Switzerland. If interested, please contact c e k i @ q o s . c h
Hello, as I understand the "classpath exception" stuff, it would rather apply to the GPL, not the LGPL. IANAL, but I think the reason why Sun, for example, has chosen the GPL +classpath exception instead of the LGPL is that the LGPL is not very clear, stable, coherent, etc. from a legal point of view. It is also more restrictive than GPL+exception. GPL + exception has the same goals as LGPL, but is more robust, and a bit more permissive. I really don't know the result of adding the classpath exception to the LGPL licence... see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GPL_linking_exception Other than that, I would have no personal objection ! Franck Le lundi 07 avril 2008 à 22:31 +0200, Ceki Gulcu a écrit :
Hello,
Subsequent to a request on the pax-logging mailing list [1], Niclas Hedhman asked me whether we would add a "Classpath exception" to our LGPL license.
In principle, I have no objections to adding such an exception. As such, I intend to add the following two paragraphs to logback's license statement.
Classpath Exception
According to the terms of LGPL, a "Combined Work" is a work produced by combining or linking an Application with logback (the Library). In section 4, the LGPL mandates that one may convey a Combined Work under terms of one's choice that, taken together, effectively do not restrict modification of the portions of the Library contained in the Combined Work and reverse engineering for debugging such modifications.
As a special exception, the copyright holders of logback give you permission to link logback with independent modules to produce an executable, regardless of the license terms of these independent modules, and to copy and distribute the resulting executable under terms of your choice, provided that you also meet, for each linked independent module, the terms and conditions of the license of that module. An independent module is a module which is not derived from or based on logback. If you modify logback, you may extend this exception to your version of logback, but you are not obliged to do so. If you do not wish to do so, delete this exception statement from your version.
Any comments?
[1] http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.comp.java.ops4j.general/4636/focus=4637
Hello Frank, Well put. As you point out, changing the logback license to GPL+"classpath exception" instead of LGPL or LGPL+classpath exception seems like the simpler approach. Moreover, the GPL+classpath exception has highly visible and accepted precedents whereas LGPL+classpath does not. Franck Routier wrote:
Hello,
as I understand the "classpath exception" stuff, it would rather apply to the GPL, not the LGPL.
IANAL, but I think the reason why Sun, for example, has chosen the GPL +classpath exception instead of the LGPL is that the LGPL is not very clear, stable, coherent, etc. from a legal point of view.
It is also more restrictive than GPL+exception.
GPL + exception has the same goals as LGPL, but is more robust, and a bit more permissive.
I really don't know the result of adding the classpath exception to the LGPL licence...
see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GPL_linking_exception
Other than that, I would have no personal objection !
Franck
Le lundi 07 avril 2008 à 22:31 +0200, Ceki Gulcu a écrit :
Hello,
Subsequent to a request on the pax-logging mailing list [1], Niclas Hedhman asked me whether we would add a "Classpath exception" to our LGPL license.
In principle, I have no objections to adding such an exception. As such, I intend to add the following two paragraphs to logback's license statement.
Classpath Exception
According to the terms of LGPL, a "Combined Work" is a work produced by combining or linking an Application with logback (the Library). In section 4, the LGPL mandates that one may convey a Combined Work under terms of one's choice that, taken together, effectively do not restrict modification of the portions of the Library contained in the Combined Work and reverse engineering for debugging such modifications.
As a special exception, the copyright holders of logback give you permission to link logback with independent modules to produce an executable, regardless of the license terms of these independent modules, and to copy and distribute the resulting executable under terms of your choice, provided that you also meet, for each linked independent module, the terms and conditions of the license of that module. An independent module is a module which is not derived from or based on logback. If you modify logback, you may extend this exception to your version of logback, but you are not obliged to do so. If you do not wish to do so, delete this exception statement from your version.
Any comments?
[1] http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.comp.java.ops4j.general/4636/focus=4637
_______________________________________________ Logback-user mailing list Logback-user@qos.ch http://qos.ch/mailman/listinfo/logback-user
-- Ceki Gülcü QOS.ch is looking to hire talented developers in Switzerland. If interested, please contact c e k i @ q o s . c h
participants (3)
-
Ceki Gulcu -
Ceki Gulcu -
Franck Routier