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

251–260 of 360 posts

Re: We Are Changing the License for Akka

#251

Post by colordrops »

TAForObvReasons wrote: post #250
beebmam wrote: post #246

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What is the problem with wanting to be paid for your labor?

The example is flawed. What really happens in open source is that the users contribute bug reports and fixes, then the project maintainers privatize the use after extracting value. Should the users who contributed code and issues be paid as well? For better or for worse, the success of many large open source projects is driven by a community of evangelists that just wouldn't exist if the project weren't open source i…

Could update the example by saying that the villagers have been contributing to bridge maintenance before it went private.

Re: We Are Changing the License for Akka

#252

Post by josephcsible »

Dylan16807 wrote: post #232
josephcsible wrote: post #231

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> there are often legal restrictions even on GPL code The difference is that they don't restrict freedom, but rather the power to withhold freedom from others: https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/freedom-or-power.en.html

No I mean like export and patent and anti-circumvention and author's rights. Things that restrict freedom.

Can you give an example of GPL'd software that actually has such restrictions?

Re: We Are Changing the License for Akka

#253

Post by josephcsible »

mannykannot wrote: post #242
josephcsible wrote: post #164

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> You are not entitled to ongoing, continued maintenance of any FLOSS project. If it were just no longer being maintained, nobody would be nearly as upset. But it is still being maintained; it's just no longer FLOSS.

Those who would have been less upset by it becoming no longer maintained can simply fork and proceed as if that were the case.

No, because the existence of the proprietary competitor to the fork will make it harder to gain traction.

Re: We Are Changing the License for Akka

#254

Post by exnot »

avalys wrote: post #48

A lot of “open source means I get to use the software for free and tell the authors what to do, forever, while not contributing a thing in return” in this thread.

That's bullshit and you should know it. The owners got a shitload in return with developers investing time and money into learning their product and suggesting it be used, fueling any side-businesses that the Akka folks had. This was never open source in the true spirit of open source and yet they touted this strong brand.

The same thing has happened several times, especially in the database space. Use the "fake open source" strategy to lure developers and then bait and switch. It's good business, but disingenuous. They remove a core implied premise, akin to a lie. If they were upfront from the beginning regarding eventually cashing in with heavy fees or cutting off contributions, community, etc, then it would be a very different case and there would have been no deception. This is deception.

Re: We Are Changing the License for Akka

#256

Post by dejung »

hugofirth wrote: post #152

As a data point, this change will mean a lot of work for us (we built cluster discovery on top of Akka Cluster at Neo4j). I'm not thrilled, but I respect their right to make these changes, and personally think that BSL with a timed revert to Apache 2.0 is a meaningful compromise. Enterprises have to be sustainable. If you're furious with Lightbend for making this change to protect their bottom line, then you can alwa…

Neo4j made a similarly deceptive play with their "open source" product, did they not?

Re: We Are Changing the License for Akka

#257

Post by TAForObvReasons »

a_c wrote: post #247

I had used akka several years before for a commercial project. It worked wonder for me. Personally I have no issue with their change of license. Author has authority, as simple as that. I'm willing to pay for something useful. People seem to take a moral high ground when it comes to software. If someone decide to make some useful project opensource. Full respect. If they changed their mind later to make the project p…

The "moral high ground" is a recognition of the true dynamic in open source.

What really happens is:

1) Project is open source

2) People use the project because it is open source

3) People contribute bug reports and fixes, creating value and improving the open source project because it is open source

4) People spread the word about the project, free marketing because it is open source

5) Maintainers decide to relicense, privatizing the value created by the community.

The "success" was a social phenomenon, not merely the efforts of the maintainers.

Relicensing is a betrayal of the community that was built around the software.

Re: We Are Changing the License for Akka

#258

Post by OrvalWintermute »

TAForObvReasons wrote: post #257
a_c wrote: post #247

I had used akka several years before for a commercial project. It worked wonder for me. Personally I have no issue with their change of license. Author has authority, as simple as that. I'm willing to pay for something useful. People seem to take a moral high ground when it comes to software. If someone decide to make some useful project opensource. Full respect. If they changed their mind later to make the project p…

The "moral high ground" is a recognition of the true dynamic in open source. What really happens is: 1) Project is open source 2) People use the project because it is open source 3) People contribute bug reports and fixes, creating value and improving the open source project because it is open source 4) People spread the word about the project, free marketing because it is open source 5) Maintainers decide to relicen…

I view open source as a key question around maintainability, and access to talent with experience.

When I see open source projects getting relicensed, I automatically assume there is some monetization campaign underway which exploits the community's contributions.

Re: We Are Changing the License for Akka

#259

Post by tauntz »

colordrops wrote: post #235
cutierust wrote: post #229

It's easy to dictate morals for others. How about let oss be voluntary and thank people for giving what they did in the past?

Build a free bridge across a river, which allows a town to grow on the other side, then shut down free access to the bridge. The builders are entitled to do this, but doesn't make it the right thing to do.

Nothing was taken away from the town and the people on the other side of the river. You can still use the free bridge. The license change only affects future new bridges but anybody is free to use the before-the-license-change-bridge exactly in the same way as they used to.
Post reply on HN