[logback-dev] Reverted logback license back to LGPL

[Ralph Goers]

Frankly, I'm not sure why you prefer LGPL over the Apache License. Are 
you concerned that Log4j will take parts of Logback?

Ceki Gulcu wrote:
> Hi Joern,
>
> The licensing questions are extremely complex. It's one area I would
> not want to get too creative. Most of the major project which use LGPL
> use v2.1, e.g. Hibernate. Moreover, if someone is more comfortable with
> LGPL v3, they can just use it, as the logback license reads:
>
> <quote>
> This library is free software; you can redistribute it and/or modify it
> under the terms of the GNU Lesser General Public License as published
> by the Free Software Foundation; either version 2.1 of the License, or
> (at your option) any later version.
> </quote>
>
> So, there is no uncertainty, or considering the OSS licensing
> mess, there is nothing but uncertainty as soon as you look into the
> subject carefully.
>
> IANAL,
>
>
> Joern Huxhorn wrote:
>   
>> Hi Ceki,
>>
>> might I suggest to change the license from LGPL V2 to LGPL V3?
>>
>> The Apache Software License 2.0 isn't compatible with GPL2, only with  
>> GPL3, so software distributed using Apache Software License probably  
>> wouldn't be allowed to use logback.
>>
>> http://www.apache.org/licenses/GPL-compatibility.html
>> http://www.fsf.org/licensing/licenses/#apache2
>>
>> While LGPL allows the use of a later version as an option in its  
>> license text, I'm not really sure if this is sufficient to use it with  
>> ASL...
>>
>> Common sense indicates yes but the above link indicates no.
>>
>> I'm not sure about LGPL anyway because there only seems to be a  
>> problem with GPL.
>>
>> So if you don't see a problem with V3 it would be nice to just be  
>> explicit about it. Just to get rid of the uncertainty :)
>>
>> IANAL,
>> Joern.
>>
>>