Return-Path: X-Original-To: apmail-camel-users-archive@www.apache.org Delivered-To: apmail-camel-users-archive@www.apache.org Received: from mail.apache.org (hermes.apache.org [140.211.11.3]) by minotaur.apache.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 5603698D6 for ; Mon, 8 Dec 2014 20:52:13 +0000 (UTC) Received: (qmail 79746 invoked by uid 500); 8 Dec 2014 20:52:12 -0000 Delivered-To: apmail-camel-users-archive@camel.apache.org Received: (qmail 79684 invoked by uid 500); 8 Dec 2014 20:52:12 -0000 Mailing-List: contact users-help@camel.apache.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Post: List-Id: Reply-To: users@camel.apache.org Delivered-To: mailing list users@camel.apache.org Received: (qmail 79672 invoked by uid 99); 8 Dec 2014 20:52:11 -0000 Received: from nike.apache.org (HELO nike.apache.org) (192.87.106.230) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Mon, 08 Dec 2014 20:52:11 +0000 X-ASF-Spam-Status: No, hits=2.0 required=5.0 tests=SPF_NEUTRAL,URI_HEX X-Spam-Check-By: apache.org Received-SPF: neutral (nike.apache.org: 162.253.133.43 is neither permitted nor denied by domain of guy@atomikos.com) Received: from [162.253.133.43] (HELO mwork.nabble.com) (162.253.133.43) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Mon, 08 Dec 2014 20:51:45 +0000 Received: from msam.nabble.com (unknown [162.253.133.85]) by mwork.nabble.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9E303D094CF for ; Mon, 8 Dec 2014 12:51:45 -0800 (PST) Date: Mon, 8 Dec 2014 13:51:44 -0700 (MST) From: GuyPardon To: users@camel.apache.org Message-ID: <1418071904248-5760337.post@n5.nabble.com> In-Reply-To: <54857CC6.7030508@pocock.pro> References: <548080A2.4090608@pocock.pro> <54818529.6020207@pocock.pro> <5481AB75.9080300@gmail.com> <54857CC6.7030508@pocock.pro> Subject: Re: Camel distributed transactions/XA without full J2EE container? MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Virus-Checked: Checked by ClamAV on apache.org 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.