[LinuxFailSafe] Failsafe Licence LGPL / GPL confusion

[Lars Marowsky-Bree]

On 2003-11-28T12:20:49,
   Kashif Shaikh <kshaikh@consensys.com> said:

> I'm not arguing if a library should be GPL or LGPL, I'm just saying the
> license application should be made clearer, so people like me can
> evaluate failsafe v.s. heartbeat(it's API is consistently LGPL). I can't
> make the headers more clearer, because it depends on what the copyright
> owners want to LGPL. So the balls in your court, I just need objective
> information.

SGI owns most of the files and would have to reevaluate the copyright
decisions.

However, if you are comparing FailSafe to heartbeat, I can tell you that
as of today, it's evaluating a space ship to a car ;-) FailSafe is much
further advanced; it's not a reasonable comparison. The two benefits
heartbeat has offer FailSafe is less complexity and tighter security.


Sincerely,
    Lars Marowsky-Brée <lmb@suse.de>

-- 
High Availability & Clustering	      \ ever tried. ever failed. no matter.
SUSE Labs			      | try again. fail again. fail better.
Research & Development, SUSE LINUX AG \ 	-- Samuel Beckett