[logback-dev] Reverted logback license back to LGPL

[Ralph Goers]

Ceki Gulcu wrote:
> Ralph Goers wrote:
>   
>> Actually, Apache wouldn't have a problem with Logback under the LGPL. It 
>> just can't distribute it or host it. As you know, many projects are 
>> already using SLF4J. Obviously, it is very easy to tell users what to do 
>> to use Logback.  The legal committee allows the use of LGPL'd software 
>> in exactly these kinds of circumstances. Since users are free to choose 
>> from multiple implementations there isn't any restriction that Logback 
>> can't be one of them. This discussion has come up many times. The LGPL 
>> is not really a problem where the use of the component is optional.
>>     
>
> "Can't distribute and host it" is pretty restrictive isn't it? If you can't 
> distribute it, this implies that you cannot depend on it, right?
>   
No. A project can list it as a maven dependency. In the case of Logback 
vs Log4j this could be handled using profiles.
> I was also under the impression that the ASF was queasy about such indirect 
> dependencies...
>   
Not really. It just depends on the circumstances.
>
>   
>> The point of the GPL and LGPL is that users who use the library and make 
>> modifications must publish those modifications if they wish to 
>> distribute their work. This is really more of an impact in a commercial 
>> setting than in the ASF. Even then there are a lot of cases where it 
>> isn't a problem. But some companies simply won't allow or don't want the 
>> "hassle" of making whatever custom filters, appenders, etc they have 
>> created available to their customers. Those are the people you will lose 
>> out on. 
>>     
>
> Does this apply to your company by any chance?
>
>   
No. But it is one of the reasons I submit my enhancements back to you. 
We don't distribute the software the software using logback so it isn't 
really a problem in any case.
>> I doubt anyone would seriously consider forking the Logback project and 
>> then supporting it themselves, even if it was licensed under something 
>> like the MIT license. It just doesn't make sense to do that to a project 
>> that is actively being maintained, such as Logback is.  I work with the 
>> Liferay portal, which is licensed under the MIT license. They are doing 
>> quite well. In fact, Sun is now partnering with them to jointly develop 
>> the code. Sun certainly had the option of taking Liferay's code and then 
>> forking it, but it just made no business sense to do that.
>>
>> The bottom line here is that you choose the license you want for a 
>> reason. I'm trying to understand how the LGPL provides more benefit to 
>> you vs any other license you could pick. You've not really answered that 
>> question.
>>     
>
> 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.

Ralph