Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

We Are Changing the License for Akka

lightbend.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 360 posts

Re: We Are Changing the License for Akka

#71

Post by Sander_Marechal »

braingenious wrote: post #35

I’ve never quite understood the amount of rancor that changes like this elicit here. It seems like people come out of the woodworks acting like they have been personally affronted by this, or that this is somehow directly affecting their lives. Is everybody here (planning on?) using this software to build companies with more than $25 million in revenue… and they can’t use something else with a more permissible licens…

It's not the change, it's the way the sell it. If they have just been up front about it ("Look, OSS isn't working for us so we are going to take it closed source.") then there would be much less drama. Instead they always try to weasel-word how they believe they are still open source when they are not in a lame attempt to not scare away their contributors.

Re: We Are Changing the License for Akka

#72

Post by cabraca »

ocdtrekkie wrote: post #34
WatchDog wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If that's what they cared about, they could have copied what ElasticSearch did, and switched to a Server Side Public License (SSPL).

While the SSPL should be recognized as a copyleft open source license, since the OSI has refused to accept it, it's not really any different than the BSL at this time. If the OSI did their actual job, and promoted open source and helped foster a business-friendly open source license that prevented Amazon from sherlocking everyone, it'd probably see major adoption.

The Problem with SSPL is, it triggers at runtime. Most OpenSource Licensens trigger at compile time. GPL ... you pull in GPL Code, compile it, your code becomes GPL. SSPL? Triggers at runtime if you run it as a SaaS, not really making clear what counts as SaaS, not really making clear what counts as a third party, etc. Thats the reason it should NOT be recognized as a open source license.

Re: We Are Changing the License for Akka

#73

Post by miragecraft »

bb1298 wrote: post #45

The commercial license is $2k per vCPU LMAO, aka an 8 core node would cost $16k annually to operate. This is about to be an absolute shit storm, don’t see how this will make a lick of financial sense for corporations to pay this.

It’s free for companies with less than 25m annual revenue, just so you know.

Re: We Are Changing the License for Akka

#74

Post by KingOfCoders »

xanathar wrote: post #11

> Sadly, open source is prone to the infamous “Tragedy of the commons”, which shows that we are prone to act in our self-interest, Like, when somebody releases something open source, then notice that they can actually make money out of it and they change the license at the last minute. Oh the hypocrisy. Seriously if you're bothered by people making money out of your product, keep it closed source, nothing wrong with…

"Like, when somebody releases something open source," ... to get traction and own the market (and sometimes, don't know here, get free work) as a business strategy, not for the greater good.

Re: We Are Changing the License for Akka

#75

Post by arinlen »

nine_k wrote: post #42
capableweb wrote: post #14

It seems like Lightbend have decided themselves to redefine what "Open Source" means for them, a slight warning sign of whats to come. > Sadly, open source is prone to the infamous “Tragedy of the commons”, [...] This situation is not sustainable and one in which everyone eventually loses. > So what does sustainable open source look like? I believe it’s where everyone—users and developers—contributes and are in it to…

I think they clearly state that the fresh versions are not open source, they are "source available". After 3 years since release the code automatically gets relicensed under Apache 2.0 and becomes open source. This is a nice provision that prevents the code from being completely lost if the company loses interest in it.

> I think they clearly state that the fresh versions are not open source, they are "source available".

To me it reads like they chose to switch to a proprietary license but don't want to be subjected to the natural consequences of betraying the trust of their userbase.

Re: We Are Changing the License for Akka

#76

Post by [deleted] »

doikor wrote: post #31
xanathar wrote: post #11

> Sadly, open source is prone to the infamous “Tragedy of the commons”, which shows that we are prone to act in our self-interest, Like, when somebody releases something open source, then notice that they can actually make money out of it and they change the license at the last minute. Oh the hypocrisy. Seriously if you're bothered by people making money out of your product, keep it closed source, nothing wrong with…

> change the license at the last minute. This is after 13 years of support not "last minute".

[deleted]

Re: We Are Changing the License for Akka

#77

Post by bb1298 »

threeseed wrote: post #53
capableweb wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What? Their target customer should be the one who has to pay, otherwise they are gonna focus on acquiring customers that won't pay? How does that make sense?

It means that they are targeting enterprise customers. And for them the price is irrelevant if it solves their problem.

How is it irrelevant? Operating a single node would be $10k+ per year. That makes no sense for a large corporation to adopt. They’re better off rewriting the entirety of Akka.

Re: We Are Changing the License for Akka

#78

Post by miragecraft »

I’m actually a big fan of the BSL license, as if it gains popularity for commercial software there would be a lot less risk of vendor lock-in like with Adobe and Autodesk.

I don’t mind paying for good software, but too many companies abuse their market position once they get big.

Re: We Are Changing the License for Akka

#79

Post by capableweb »

tkfu wrote: post #40
capableweb wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I don't understand the sentiment of "once something is OSS, it has to be so forever". They owe you what exactly? If I contributed to the project, I did so under the premise of the LICENSE that was active when I contributed. If I didn't like OSS, I wouldn't have contributed to a OSS project. Them changing the license is a middle-finger to me as a contributor. > Its fine to spend your nights and weekends on passions…

> If I contributed to the project, I did so under the premise of the LICENSE that was active when I contributed. If I didn't like OSS, I wouldn't have contributed to a OSS project. Them changing the license is a middle-finger to me as a contributor. No, you contributed under the premise of the LICENSE that was active when you contributed _and the CLA they made you sign before they accepted your PR_, which said that t…

Sorry, I was responding directly to the claim ""once something is OSS, it has to be so forever". They owe you what exactly?" without thinking about Lightbend in particular. If you sign a CLA saying they can change the license later on if they so wishes, they are of course free to do so.

Re: We Are Changing the License for Akka

#80

Post by bjornsing »

capableweb wrote: post #14

It seems like Lightbend have decided themselves to redefine what "Open Source" means for them, a slight warning sign of whats to come. > Sadly, open source is prone to the infamous “Tragedy of the commons”, [...] This situation is not sustainable and one in which everyone eventually loses. > So what does sustainable open source look like? I believe it’s where everyone—users and developers—contributes and are in it to…

> Just because you didn't manage to build a company around a Open Source library/ecosystem, doesn't mean Open Source is not sustainable. It just means that your company is not sustainable. But I guess it's hard to blame yourself when you see others using your code without paying for it.

This almost religious attitude makes no sense to me. Clearly other’s use of that code wasn’t very sustainable, since the author now says they will no longer maintain it for free. You’re essentially describing the “everyone looses” outcome that the OP wants to address, but you seem to think it’s a good outcome.

Post reply on HN