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

cowwoc cowwoc at bbs.darktech.org
Sat Aug 23 19:19:45 CEST 2008

Thanks for the clarification :)


Ceki Gulcu wrote:
> If you are just using logback, then I don't think you have any obligations
> to 
> begin with. The question is then distinguishing between "just using" from 
> "extending". If you are accessing logback as a runtime implementation of
> SLF4J, 
> then even under a conservative interpretation of LGPL, you are not linking
> with 
> logback but with SLF4J. It follows that your "work in isolation, is not a 
> derivative work of the Library, and therefore falls outside the scope of
> this 
> License [LGPL]."
> As I see it, it is pretty clear that you are only "just using" logback and
> not 
> extending it.  Thus, accessing logback via SLF4J limits LGPL's protective
> (or 
> viral depending on your point of view) properties so that it does not
> propagate 
> to your application.
> I hope this answers your question,
> cowwoc wrote:
>> If my application is written against slf4j but I plug in logback at
>> runtime
>> as the logging implementation doesn't this somehow imply that my
>> application
>> is linking against logback and as such the LGPL applies?
>> Gili
> -- 
> Ceki Gülcü
> _______________________________________________
> 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--tp8058617p19123387.html
Sent from the Logback User mailing list archive at Nabble.com.

More information about the Logback-user mailing list