logging-log4j-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Ceki Gülcü <c...@qos.ch>
Subject Re: Open source licensing (was RE: Configuration GUI)
Date Wed, 12 Feb 2003 14:30:02 GMT

Having just looked at the LGPL more closely, it may be almost as viral as 
the GPL.

See also http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?t=104477225500003&r=1&w=2

At 08:14 12.02.2003 -0600, you wrote:

>Hi Ceki,
>I concur with your sentiments.
>I don't know the details of Apache's dislike for the LGPL licence but, on 
>the face of it, it seems just silly.  It is obvious to anyone and everyone 
>what intent an author has when he/she puts their library under LGPL.  It 
>is meant to be freely useable and freely distributable with no intent to 
>limit ones options in usage of the library (unlike the GPL).  Apache needs 
>to work this out.  How can they, on the one hand, allow utilization of 
>Sun's JDK which is more restrictive than any open source license and, on 
>the other hand, restrict the use of an, obviously, open license like 
>LGPL?  This sort of in-fighting doesn't help anyone in the open source 
>community and probably gives companies like Microsoft pretty good chuckle 
>(more like a belly laugh!).
>What a ridiculous problem to have!  This is not what open source licensing 
>is about.
>At 11:55 AM 2/12/2003 +0100, you wrote:
>>My suggestion would be to use BSD or MIT. Obviously, Apache license is 
>>more than fine. Also check out the Open Software License. 
>>http://opensource.org is a good source of further information.
>>LPGL is apparently not acceptable although I would not be able to explain 
>>the reasons with a straight face.


To unsubscribe, e-mail: log4j-dev-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: log4j-dev-help@jakarta.apache.org

View raw message