[logback-user] Why LGPL instead of Apache License?

cowwoc cowwoc at bbs.darktech.org
Fri Aug 22 21:03:28 CEST 2008


What is the legal implication of using Logback through slf4j? Does this
limit our obligations to slf4j's MIT license or does any aspect of logback's
LGPL license pass through?

Thank you,

Ceki Gulcu-2 wrote:
> Hello Bruce,
> The LGPL was chosen for a number of reasons. First, it is a relatively
> permissive license for those wishing to use logback as a logging
> library. Second, those who wish to extend logback can do so as long as
> they publish the results under the LGPL, a condition which I find
> quite reasonable. Third, the LGPL help to differentiate between log4j
> and logback as projects.
> Moreover, given that logback is intended to be used behind the SLF4J
> API, client code does not come in direct contact with logback
> code. SLF4J is licensed under and MIT/X11 type of license. Thus, even
> organizations such the ASF which do not permit the use of LGPL
> licensed libraries, can use logback through SLF4J.
> I hope this answers the question,
> At 02:16 AM 12/27/2006, you wrote:
>>Log4J employs the Apache License and wound up being the inspiration for
>>entire Logging Project at the ASF, why was the LGPL chosen as the license
>>employ for Logback?
> -- 
> Ceki Gülcü
> Logback: The reliable, generic, fast and flexible logging framework for
> Java.
> http://logback.qos.ch
> _______________________________________________
> Logback-user mailing list
> Logback-user at qos.ch
> http://qos.ch/mailman/listinfo/logback-user

View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/Why-LGPL-instead-of-Apache-License--tp8058617p19112373.html
Sent from the Logback User mailing list archive at Nabble.com.

More information about the Logback-user mailing list