[logback-dev] Reverted logback license back to LGPL

Lilianne E. Blaze lilianne at lilianne-blaze.net
Mon Aug 11 23:11:41 CEST 2008

Ceki Gulcu wrote:
> Ralph Goers wrote:
>> Ceki Gulcu wrote:
>>> LGPL is just a different and widely-accepted license, that's all.
>> So are MIT, Apache, BSD, etc. Yet you didn't choose one of them or one 
>> of many other licenses listed at the open source initiatives site. 
>> Surely you had more of a reason than that.
> MIT and BSD like Apache, except shorter. The LGPL is more assertive. I also find 
> it morally acceptable and depending on the circumstance even desirable to 
> propagate LGPL to logback extensions. The ASF point of view, i.e no license 
> propagation, is also reasonable.
> I really wish the ASF and FSF could reach some sort of agreement and then 
> declare their licenses mutually compatible. The FSF has done that. The ASF has 
> not. Given that it has taken over two years to settle on the patent clauses of 
> the Apache license, I am not holding my breath.

I'm not exactly an expert, in fact far from it (and most of the code I 
work on is closed) but -

Why not simply dual-license? LGPL + Apache?

Greetings, Lilianne

More information about the logback-dev mailing list