Is it clear which exact OSS components will get the license change?
For example, is akka-http [0] part of these changes?
We Are Changing the License for Akka
111–120 of 360 posts
Re: We Are Changing the License for Akka
#112Earlier quoted context omitted.
Bait and switch is never nice, whether Google does it or putative open source projects. A lot of developers work for companies that has more than $25M in revenue, and now a ton of them is going to get shit from management because they added this cuckoo egg dependency back when it used an open source license. I have no problem with companies using whatever license, I do have trouble with them getting traction being op…
$2k per vCPU is 16k for a pretty standard 8 core ec2. The ec2 itself might cost ~$300 a month or $3600 a year. Where the hell did they come up with this pricing model lol.
Sounds like Oracle.
Re: We Are Changing the License for Akka
#113Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Not many people would have imagined that the monopolists would weaponize open source like they do now. What do you think "weaponize open source" means? It doesn't look like it means a thing, and lounds like a poor attempt at shoehorning "weapon" in a discussion on how a potential user's income is something noteworthy.
Companies like Amazon offering open source software as a hosting service can out-compete any other companies offering the same just based on market position. Liberal open source licenses are the perfect weapon for the monopolists because they ensure an "equal" playing field, meaning they have access to the same tech that smaller companies have. All things being equal, they can always crush the competition with their…
> Companies like Amazon offering open source software as a hosting service can out-compete any other companies offering the same just based on market position.
Can you please explain exactly what's wrong with that? I mean, the whole point of FLOSS is to ensure everyone has the right to access, fix, and alter the software. Why do you feel anyone's revenue is relevant?
> Liberal open source licenses are the perfect weapon for the monopolists because they ensure an "equal" playing field, meaning they have access to the same tech that smaller companies have.
Your comment makes zero sense. FLOSS is about ensuring the right to use, fix, and alter software. It's not about people with a axe to grind about competitors providing a better service.
The only weapon I see here is people trying to abuse the concept of FLOSS to complain about their inability to profit from other people's software because others do a better job.
Re: We Are Changing the License for Akka
#114imo this is probably the most comprehensive usage of bsl so far. cockroach and couchbase use it to exclude dbaas, and mariadb only uses it for non-core features. lightbend has put everything under bsl. this includes the core actor system that a lot of companies use.
i can think of a few companies whose total spend with this license would justify a two pizza team to maintain a fork of akka or replace it outright.
Re: We Are Changing the License for Akka
#115> 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…
There is also a challenge in compensating the former OSS contributors who made the community around the product a success...
Re: We Are Changing the License for Akka
#116I wonder if this is mainly aimed at Java Akka use. In my humble opinion, Akka is becoming less relevant in Scala community. I don't see new projects picking it up as there are better alternatives.
akka-core or the libraries built on top of it?
Re: We Are Changing the License for Akka
#117It all started with Scala which was a decent, functional Java (at the time) and then they formed a commercial organisation called "TypeSafe" around it. Then it took on VC money and then also renamed itself to "Lightbend" (for some reason). In this time, Akka which was one of the special library of Scala was also included in the Lightbend fold with many of the prominent devs.
While I understand that open source developers also need to make money, I do not think this mode of operation is my favorite. When a programming language / library / tool takes on VC money it is just inevitable that they will need a mode of revenue in the near future and this is one way to do it.
Anyways, between this and the Scala 2 -> 3 migration, I do not think I would recommend Scala to anyone now or touch it myself.
Re: We Are Changing the License for Akka
#118Earlier quoted context omitted.
[flagged]
Writing Open Source is one hobby, I have plenty of other ones in addition to that one, none of which involve computers or IT. It says a lot about how well you have thought through your argument that only kids do open source when you directly move on to personal attacks rather than trying to explain yourself better.
> With all due respect, fuck you.
This you?
Re: We Are Changing the License for Akka
#119Earlier 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.
Copyright/copyleft licenses deal with your ability to publish the original work or derivative works, as well as performances of the derivative work.
SSPL requires you to publish items which may be non-derivative work on certain kinds of performances. Further, it does so specifically to be punitive against certain kinds of use (e.g. use by a competing company).
Because of the requirement to release so much non-derivative work under SSPL, including infrastructure you may not have written yourself or own copyright to, it is likely infeasible for one to be conformant to that provision.
Re: We Are Changing the License for Akka
#120Earlier quoted context omitted.
Bait and switch is never nice, whether Google does it or putative open source projects. A lot of developers work for companies that has more than $25M in revenue, and now a ton of them is going to get shit from management because they added this cuckoo egg dependency back when it used an open source license. I have no problem with companies using whatever license, I do have trouble with them getting traction being op…
>A lot of developers work for companies that has more than $25M in revenue, and now a ton of them is going to get shit from management because they added this cuckoo egg dependency back when it used an open source license. No, they're just going to not bump Akka until they can either find a replacement, or accept a new version with a new license. You do not need to bump it every month, you can live with half a year o…
Like, have you even looked at those prices? $2K per CPU isn't extremely minimal for anybody. If you have a hundred servers with 16 CPUs that's $3M. For just a library.
Speaking of a bunch of leeches.