[logback-user] Minimal library dependency for logback implementation of RequestLogImpl

Russell E Glaue rglaue at cait.org
Tue Jan 27 18:43:15 CET 2009

While this is true in general when the desire is to embed a LGPL work into an
APL work, it is not true in this case.

In regards to LGPL 2.1, which Logback is licensed, review section 5.
In using logback in Geronimo:
1. Logback is distributed with Geronimo, but Geronimo is not derived from Logback.
2. Geronimo can run without Logback.

I am intending that the Logback library be distributed with Geronimo to provide
an additional option for logging at the user's prerogative. However, by default
the Logback library would not be configured, thus making the Logback library a
dormant unused library by default.

The only license problem Apache (APL) has with LGPL is the restriction LGPL puts
on larger works, as defined in LGPL section 5. However, as I have noted, in this
case Geronimo would not be consider a "larger work".

So, yes, as you said, Logback has to be an optional component.

However, thank you for making this clear to me.

I now am considering that to include a LGPL software in an APL software as I
have said may not initially cause any issues, but as time proceeds, the doors
will be inviting issues while the LGPL is part of the distribution, lending to
the future possibility of violating section 5 of the LGPL.

How does the logback community feel about this restriction upon the Logback library?


Ralph Goers wrote:
> On Jan 26, 2009, at 1:09 PM, Russell E Glaue wrote:
>> Additionally, Jetty 6 and 7 have support for log4j to implement
>> application
>> logging. There does not seem to be any interest in replacing log4j
>> with Logback.
>> One of the main reason appears to be that Logback is LGPL and not
>> either APL or
>> EPL. I think this is a little weird, because all three licenses are GPL
>> compatible. So I am not understanding the reasoning why Logback could not
>> legally be used.
> Although components using these various licenses can all be packaged and
> distributed together, they are not completely "compatible".
> See http://apache.org/legal/resolved.html.
>> However I do understand that in the move to Eclipse, the Jetty
>> community is
>> steering clear of anything that might potentially give reason to slow
>> down the
>> process of getting Jetty moved to Eclipse.
>> I think that after Jetty @ Eclipse has been established, there might
>> be more
>> openness to adding additional third party library support to Jetty-core.
>> In the mean time, it is my belief that additional enterprise-worthy
>> library
>> support (like Logback) can be requested to be added to Geronimo or other
>> upstream software implementations of Jetty-core.
>> My team here at the center is working on a GBean implementation of
>> Logback's
>> RequestLogImpl class. After its completion, we are planning to
>> contribute it to
>> Geronimo.
> While Geronimo can use the SLF4J api, due to its licensing Logback can
> only be an optional component for any Apache project. So you can expect
> that the default implementation used would be log4j.
> Ralph
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> _______________________________________________
> Logback-user mailing list
> Logback-user at qos.ch
> http://qos.ch/mailman/listinfo/logback-user

More information about the Logback-user mailing list