<div class="gmail_quote">On Thu, Sep 17, 2009 at 1:07 PM, Ceki Gulcu <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:ceki@qos.ch">ceki@qos.ch</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">
Hello all,<br>
<br>
After a very long investigation resulting in a better understanding of<br>
licensing issues, I think dual-licensing logback under EPL 1.0 and<br>
LGPL 2.1 would help with the project's adoption.<br>
<br>
Licensees can then choose either the terms of the EPL or the terms of<br>
the LGPL when they use logback. The EPL license will placate<br>
organizations which refuse the restrictions imposed by the LGPL<br>
whereas the LGPL license ensures continuity in licensing and also<br>
keeps the door open for licensees already bound by the terms of<br>
(L)GPL.<br>
<br>
Comments?<br>
<br>
ps. If you intend to respond, please do so on logback-users@.<br><font color="#888888">
<br>
-- <br>
Ceki Gülcü<br>
Logback: The reliable, generic, fast and flexible logging framework for Java.<br>
<a href="http://logback.qos.ch" target="_blank">http://logback.qos.ch</a><br>
_______________________________________________<br>
Logback-user mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:Logback-user@qos.ch" target="_blank">Logback-user@qos.ch</a><br>
<a href="http://qos.ch/mailman/listinfo/logback-user" target="_blank">http://qos.ch/mailman/listinfo/logback-user</a><br>
</font></blockquote></div><br>I agree that this would be a positive move.<br><br>-- <br>Stephen Duncan Jr<br><a href="http://www.stephenduncanjr.com">www.stephenduncanjr.com</a><br>