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

[Ralph Goers]

On Jan 27, 2009, at 12:09 PM, Ceki Gulcu wrote:

>
>
>
> Russell E Glaue wrote:
>
>> But I am not seeing how including LGPL libraries in a distribution,  
>> which only
>> provides additional options, can be a problem. Especially as Ceki  
>> says Logback
>> code is actually implementing an interface with an APL license.
>> The only thing to be careful of is that if there are any derived  
>> works from the
>> LGPL libraries, that the code is probably contributed to the LGPL  
>> licensed work
>> instead of the APL licensed work.
>
>
> The LGPL 2.1 license has a rather ambiguous definition of "derivative
> work". See conditions 5 and 6 of the LGPL 2.1. The ASF folks have a
> conservative interpretation of the LGPL terms, preferring to forbid
> Apache projects from referencing software licensed under the LGPL. The
> poor communication channel between the ASF and the FSF has not helped
> to clarify matters. If I remember correctly, some years ago the
> ASF has asked to clarify the terms of LGPL. FSF's answer was rather
> unsatisfactory. That's my understanding of the matter.

That has all been cleared up. As I said, LGPL'd works can be used for  
optional components. For example, a project may use Hibernate but only  
if it is not required for the project to work.
>
>
>> So if I want to contribute some code to Geronimo which the code  
>> actually is a
>> derived work of Logback libraries, I should contribute it to  
>> Logback and then
>> put in a request to upgrade the Logback libraries in Geronimo so  
>> that support
>> exists there.
>
>> And this answer a previous question of where to commit the GBean  
>> implementation
>> of the Logback Jetty RequestLogImpl for Geronimo. We should  
>> contribute it to
>> Logback for inclusion in release X, then lobby Geronimo to support  
>> release X of
>> Logback.
>
> I would not hold my breath until the licensing issues are resolved.
>
> In order to move forward quickly, you could simply create your own  
> oss project and develop your GBean there, licensed under LGPL. By  
> the way, if you don't intend to distribute the GBean, you could use  
> any license.

The GBean may not be a derivative work, in which case it can be  
licensed under the Apache license. The whole point of the LGPL is that  
while the library itself is under the LGPL, applications using the  
library can choose any license they like.

Ralph