Still, it doesn't seem like there is much interest in using totem. For session replication you can use primary-backup, if anything.
On Sun, 22 Jan 2006, Geir Magnusson Jr wrote: > Catching up : > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > >> No. You license the code to the Apache Software Foundation giving > >> the foundation the rights to relicense under any license (so the > >> foundation can upgrade the license as they did with ASL2). We do ask > >> that you change the copyrights on the version of the code you give to > >> the ASF to something like "Copyright 2004 The Apache Software > >> Foundation or its licensors, as applicable." > > > > That _is_ transferring the copyright. > > No, it isn't. You are still the copyright holder of the contributed > material. The (c) statement that Dain suggested represents the > collective copyright of the whole package, which is your original code > (for which you hold the copyright), and additions from other people (who > individually hold copyright or share copyright depending on the > contribution.) > > That's why it's "or it's licensors", which you would certainly be. > > > > > As I told Jeff on the phone, I would definitely considering this if it > > turns that evs4j will really be used, but I would rather not grant someone > > an unlimited license at the present time. Jeff said we are going to have a > > discussion, so we'll know more soon enough. > > The Apache License is fairly close to an unlimited license, so if it's > available under the AL, you are already there. > > The only thing different is that you are giving the ASF the ability to > distribute the collective work under other terms other than the current > version of the Apache License. > > I hope that makes you feel a little more comfortable about things. > > geir > >
