License approval is done on the terms, not the name. So, if SLF4j uses a license with identical terms to MIT (and also plainly interpret it that way), then i wouldn't pause on those grounds.
On Mon, Jun 15, 2009 at 7:19 PM, Greg Reddin<[email protected]> wrote: > On Fri, Jun 12, 2009 at 12:46 PM, Antonio > Petrelli<[email protected]> wrote: >> Hello >> I would like to know your thought about migrating from Commons Logging to >> SLF4j. > > What about the license? Their web page says the terms are "identical > to those of the MIT License", then references approval by the ASF. I > assume the approval is referring to the MIT license not this one. Is > there any due diligence that should be done to assure there won't be > problems with this? > > What is the motivation for the change? I don't have strong opinions > one way or the other. Maybe I should be discussing on JIRA :-) > > Greg >
