camel-users mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From GuyPardon <...@atomikos.com>
Subject Re: Camel distributed transactions/XA without full J2EE container?
Date Mon, 08 Dec 2014 20:51:44 GMT
Hi,

I am from Atomikos. I can confirm that our software is open source and
apache-licensed (and as far as I am concerned always will be - we never
regretted moving towards open source so far). You can use it any way you
like, as long as you like, rebrand it or whatever - but if you want
professional bug fixes from us then you pay for a subscription. I don't
think this model is unfair, it is what RedHat is doing too AFAIK. 

Actually we've been wondering quite a few times already whether to move to
GitHub but haven't yet mainly for one big reason: we don't know any
professional open source project that is making money in a sustainable way
on GitHub (besides maybe GitHub itself). RedHat isn't (or is it?). I know
there is Hazelcast (with all respect due), but they operate on VC money and
are only doing this since very recently so I am not sure how sustainable
that is going to be for them. 

In short: we never had VC money and had to earn every euro we ever spent.
That's been a major factor in every decision we ever made so far. That being
said, we're always eager to learn and adapt so please feel free to prove us
wrong...

Thanks
Guy



--
View this message in context: http://camel.465427.n5.nabble.com/Camel-distributed-transactions-XA-without-full-J2EE-container-tp5760152p5760337.html
Sent from the Camel - Users mailing list archive at Nabble.com.

Mime
View raw message