[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?
More information about the logback-dev