You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to legal-discuss@apache.org by "Ceki Gulcu (JIRA)" <ji...@apache.org> on 2009/08/25 18:11:59 UTC
[jira] Created: (LEGAL-63) Are Apache projects allowed to include
Logback in their builds?
Are Apache projects allowed to include Logback in their builds?
---------------------------------------------------------------
Key: LEGAL-63
URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LEGAL-63
Project: Legal Discuss
Issue Type: Question
Reporter: Ceki Gulcu
Background:
SLF4J is licensed under the MIT license. Logback is licensed under the LGPL.
SLF4J has an API which logback implements. SLF4J can be used with at least 5 other implementations, some of which are licensed under AL2.0 and some under MIT.
Given that the end-user can pick and choose an implementation and assuming a given Apache Project (AP) only imports SLF4J classes in its source code (java classes):
1) can AP include references to logback in its build scripts?
2) can AP include logback in its standard distribution?
--
This message is automatically generated by JIRA.
-
You can reply to this email to add a comment to the issue online.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org
[jira] Commented: (LEGAL-63) Are Apache projects allowed to include
Logback in their builds?
Posted by "Jukka Zitting (JIRA)" <ji...@apache.org>.
[ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LEGAL-63?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=12748327#action_12748327 ]
Jukka Zitting commented on LEGAL-63:
------------------------------------
Here's a concrete use case where this is affecting us:
Apache Jackrabbit uses the SLF4J API for all logging. It is up to our downstream users to select which actual logging implementation they want to use with Jackrabbit. So far so good.
We also provide a runnable "Jackrabbit Standalone" jar binary that combines Jackrabbit and all the dependencies to a single jar file that can be run with no other dependencies than a JRE. To do this we obviously need to bundle also a specific logging implementation. Currently we use Log4J for that purpose, but Logback would be a nice and more modern alternative that would make a few things easier for us.
So far this option has not been on the table for Jackrabbit because of the policy against LGPL dependencies.
> Are Apache projects allowed to include Logback in their builds?
> ---------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Key: LEGAL-63
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LEGAL-63
> Project: Legal Discuss
> Issue Type: Question
> Reporter: Ceki Gulcu
>
> Background:
> SLF4J is licensed under the MIT license. Logback is licensed under the LGPL.
> SLF4J has an API which logback implements. SLF4J can be used with at least 5 other implementations, some of which are licensed under AL2.0 and some under MIT.
> Given that the end-user can pick and choose an implementation and assuming a given Apache Project (AP) only imports SLF4J classes in its source code (java classes):
> 1) can AP include references to logback in its build scripts?
> 2) can AP include logback in its standard distribution?
--
This message is automatically generated by JIRA.
-
You can reply to this email to add a comment to the issue online.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org
[jira] Commented: (LEGAL-63) Are Apache projects allowed to include
Logback in their builds?
Posted by "Craig Russell (JIRA)" <ji...@apache.org>.
[ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LEGAL-63?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=12751199#action_12751199 ]
Craig Russell commented on LEGAL-63:
------------------------------------
I agree completely with item 2. An LGPL-licensed work cannot be distributed nor included in the svn repository of an Apache project.
But item 1 is less clear, even after reading the legal-discuss thread on the subject.
A developer who obtains the source distribution (*not* including the prohibited work) and builds it does not thereby taint the project even if the test suite runs with the prohibited work.
A user who obtains any distribution (*not* including the prohibited work) and uses it isn't automatically running the prohibited work either (it's strictly a build/test dependency, *not* a runtime dependency). It's the user's choice whether to include her own dependency on the prohibited work in the running project.
> Are Apache projects allowed to include Logback in their builds?
> ---------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Key: LEGAL-63
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LEGAL-63
> Project: Legal Discuss
> Issue Type: Question
> Reporter: Ceki Gulcu
>
> Background:
> SLF4J is licensed under the MIT license. Logback is licensed under the LGPL.
> SLF4J has an API which logback implements. SLF4J can be used with at least 5 other implementations, some of which are licensed under AL2.0 and some under MIT.
> Given that the end-user can pick and choose an implementation and assuming a given Apache Project (AP) only imports SLF4J classes in its source code (java classes):
> 1) can AP include references to logback in its build scripts?
> 2) can AP include logback in its standard distribution?
--
This message is automatically generated by JIRA.
-
You can reply to this email to add a comment to the issue online.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org
[jira] Closed: (LEGAL-63) Are Apache projects allowed to include
Logback in their builds?
Posted by "Henri Yandell (JIRA)" <ji...@apache.org>.
[ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LEGAL-63?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:all-tabpanel ]
Henri Yandell closed LEGAL-63.
------------------------------
Resolution: Not A Problem
Ralph: No irony. Abstract statement not happening, specific statements possible. It may be that the resolved.html needs to indicate that exceptions may be made to category X.
Great to hear logback is dualed with EPL now. Definitely no need for the issue now and we can start including logback binaries under EPL in distributions.
Ceki: Agreed. The reverse engineering clause is one of our chief concerns as to why LGPL is not comparable to MPL/CDDL/EPL/CPL.
Resolving the issue, and thanks Ceki for relicensing.
> Are Apache projects allowed to include Logback in their builds?
> ---------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Key: LEGAL-63
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LEGAL-63
> Project: Legal Discuss
> Issue Type: Question
> Reporter: Ceki Gulcu
>
> Background:
> SLF4J is licensed under the MIT license. Logback is licensed under the LGPL.
> SLF4J has an API which logback implements. SLF4J can be used with at least 5 other implementations, some of which are licensed under AL2.0 and some under MIT.
> Given that the end-user can pick and choose an implementation and assuming a given Apache Project (AP) only imports SLF4J classes in its source code (java classes):
> 1) can AP include references to logback in its build scripts?
> 2) can AP include logback in its standard distribution?
--
This message is automatically generated by JIRA.
-
You can reply to this email to add a comment to the issue online.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org
[jira] Commented: (LEGAL-63) Are Apache projects allowed to include
Logback in their builds?
Posted by "Ceki Gulcu (JIRA)" <ji...@apache.org>.
[ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LEGAL-63?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=12792833#action_12792833 ]
Ceki Gulcu commented on LEGAL-63:
---------------------------------
(To Ralph: when is the last time you saw a user, all impious and lazy scoundrels, close a bug report? You can quote me on the "impious and lazy" bit.)
As Ralph points out, logback is now dual licensed (LGPL/EPL) so the original question raised in this bug report is no longer relevant.
However, the theoretical case of an LGPLed library implementing a standard (licensed under a liberal license) remains valuable. It illustrates LGPL's requirements on reverse engineering. For example,
Let FooCorp be a company and Frobber be some software developed by FooCorp. Frobber codes against the SLF4J API without ever directly referencing logback. Can FooCorp distribute Frobber with an unmodified version of logback (our LGPLed library). Does the LGPL require FooCorp to allow users to reverse engineer Frobber for their own use? Keep in mind that Frobber usage of logback in Frobber is isolated behind the SLF4J API.
The answer to that question is surprisingly yes, although with some qualifications too hairy to be mentioned. FooCorp is required to allow reverse engineering of logback in the software license for Frobber. This follows from discussions with Luigi Bai, an FSF volunteer, and is also documented by the Free Software licensing quiz (see http://www.gnu.org/cgi-bin/license-quiz.cgi ), in particular question 8, which reads:
Question: FooCorp [a company] distributes Frobber [software developed by FooCord] linked against an unmodified version of LibIdo [an LGPL library]. Does the LGPL require FooCorp to allow users to reverse engineer Frobber for their own use?
Correct answer: Yes.
I still have my doubts about the applicability of the reverse-engineering clause but the FSF thinks otherwise, as insofar that an organization can think. FSF's interpretation is in turn echoed as defensive measures by others, e.g. the ASF. The LGPL is a little less liberal than what it seems initially. It is what it is, neither good or bad. Nevertheless, the mere fact that the reverse-engineering question is so convoluted and shrouded in layers of gobbledygook, is the of the principal reasons for dual-licensing logback.
> Are Apache projects allowed to include Logback in their builds?
> ---------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Key: LEGAL-63
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LEGAL-63
> Project: Legal Discuss
> Issue Type: Question
> Reporter: Ceki Gulcu
>
> Background:
> SLF4J is licensed under the MIT license. Logback is licensed under the LGPL.
> SLF4J has an API which logback implements. SLF4J can be used with at least 5 other implementations, some of which are licensed under AL2.0 and some under MIT.
> Given that the end-user can pick and choose an implementation and assuming a given Apache Project (AP) only imports SLF4J classes in its source code (java classes):
> 1) can AP include references to logback in its build scripts?
> 2) can AP include logback in its standard distribution?
--
This message is automatically generated by JIRA.
-
You can reply to this email to add a comment to the issue online.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org
[jira] Commented: (LEGAL-63) Are Apache projects allowed to include
Logback in their builds?
Posted by "Jukka Zitting (JIRA)" <ji...@apache.org>.
[ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LEGAL-63?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=12748342#action_12748342 ]
Jukka Zitting commented on LEGAL-63:
------------------------------------
Here's my interpretation of the related discussion on legal-discuss@.
> 1) can AP include references to logback in its build scripts?
Yes, but only if such references are optional and not enabled by default. The downstream user needs to intentionally enable Logback use.
> 2) can AP include logback in its standard distribution?
No.
> Are Apache projects allowed to include Logback in their builds?
> ---------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Key: LEGAL-63
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LEGAL-63
> Project: Legal Discuss
> Issue Type: Question
> Reporter: Ceki Gulcu
>
> Background:
> SLF4J is licensed under the MIT license. Logback is licensed under the LGPL.
> SLF4J has an API which logback implements. SLF4J can be used with at least 5 other implementations, some of which are licensed under AL2.0 and some under MIT.
> Given that the end-user can pick and choose an implementation and assuming a given Apache Project (AP) only imports SLF4J classes in its source code (java classes):
> 1) can AP include references to logback in its build scripts?
> 2) can AP include logback in its standard distribution?
--
This message is automatically generated by JIRA.
-
You can reply to this email to add a comment to the issue online.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org
[jira] Commented: (LEGAL-63) Are Apache projects allowed to include
Logback in their builds?
Posted by "Henri Yandell (JIRA)" <ji...@apache.org>.
[ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LEGAL-63?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=12792820#action_12792820 ]
Henri Yandell commented on LEGAL-63:
------------------------------------
This is the classic optional use case (along with the JDBC ones). I think things are generally well understood:
> 2) can AP include logback in its standard distribution?
No. In fact scratch the word 'standard' and replace with 'a'.
> 1) can AP include references to logback in its build scripts?
Yes, however it needs to both be clear to the user that logback is in use and be easily exchangeable for another (existing) implementation under a preferable license. In this case, log4j would apply as an preferably licensed alternative.
The standard way to make it clear is for the user to have to do work to add logback to the product (by obtaining logback and/or changing configuration), and it is expected that the preferable license product would be the default given that one must exist. That is, if two LGPL implementations were the only options, then a dependency on the choice of one of them would not be allowable.
--
Resolving:
I'd like to add specific text for logback, though I see it growing into something more generic over time. I'll add the above (with contextual editing) to resolved.html in no less than 2 weeks if consensus (lazy or otherwise).
> Are Apache projects allowed to include Logback in their builds?
> ---------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Key: LEGAL-63
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LEGAL-63
> Project: Legal Discuss
> Issue Type: Question
> Reporter: Ceki Gulcu
>
> Background:
> SLF4J is licensed under the MIT license. Logback is licensed under the LGPL.
> SLF4J has an API which logback implements. SLF4J can be used with at least 5 other implementations, some of which are licensed under AL2.0 and some under MIT.
> Given that the end-user can pick and choose an implementation and assuming a given Apache Project (AP) only imports SLF4J classes in its source code (java classes):
> 1) can AP include references to logback in its build scripts?
> 2) can AP include logback in its standard distribution?
--
This message is automatically generated by JIRA.
-
You can reply to this email to add a comment to the issue online.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org
[jira] Commented: (LEGAL-63) Are Apache projects allowed to include
Logback in their builds?
Posted by "Ralph Goers (JIRA)" <ji...@apache.org>.
[ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LEGAL-63?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=12792822#action_12792822 ]
Ralph Goers commented on LEGAL-63:
----------------------------------
I find this ironic with regards to your response to LEGAL-54. By addressing that issue there is no need to spell out how to handle Logback with regards to the LGPL.
Also, I should point out that Ceki should have updated this issue. He has changed Logback to be dual licensed under both LGPL and EPL at the user's choice. Therefore I believe the answer to this issue should now be yes since the EPL is already documented as being allowed.
> Are Apache projects allowed to include Logback in their builds?
> ---------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Key: LEGAL-63
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LEGAL-63
> Project: Legal Discuss
> Issue Type: Question
> Reporter: Ceki Gulcu
>
> Background:
> SLF4J is licensed under the MIT license. Logback is licensed under the LGPL.
> SLF4J has an API which logback implements. SLF4J can be used with at least 5 other implementations, some of which are licensed under AL2.0 and some under MIT.
> Given that the end-user can pick and choose an implementation and assuming a given Apache Project (AP) only imports SLF4J classes in its source code (java classes):
> 1) can AP include references to logback in its build scripts?
> 2) can AP include logback in its standard distribution?
--
This message is automatically generated by JIRA.
-
You can reply to this email to add a comment to the issue online.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org