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

261–270 of 360 posts

Re: We Are Changing the License for Akka

#261

Post by OrvalWintermute »

colordrops wrote: post #251
TAForObvReasons wrote: post #250

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

O&M of a thing, often outweighs the initial cost of bootstrapping it in the first place.

The longer it runs, the more this is true.

Re: We Are Changing the License for Akka

#262

Post by tsss »

ccleve wrote: post #193

To everyone who thinks that $2k/vCPU is a lot of money, it's not. First, if you're running it on an 8-core server, that's $16k per year, which is about what many companies are paying for an enterprise support contract. It's not much when you consider that it gives you access to Akka engineers at the cost of 1/10 of an FTE. Second, the $2k number is a list price. All large enterprise deals are negotiated, and nearly a…

An 8-core server? Please. Just my team uses 70 vCores (peak) in our Kubernetes cluster. Without a custom licensing agreement that's $140k/year. The whole company is bound to pay well over $500k/year.

Furthermore, most people here (as usual) seem to be completely ignorant about what Akka is. The vast majority of Akka users only ever interact with Akka through other libraries that depend on it: Akka-HTTP, Akka-Streams, Alpakka Connectors, etc. Hardly anyone actually uses Akka actors directly, the Akka Cluster platform or recently implemented distributed programming features (like Akka persistence) that makes up the business model of Lightbend. It's essentially a runtime system; an implementation detail. It's no surprise that none of these users ever make contributions back to a software that is so far removed from business code.

Re: We Are Changing the License for Akka

#263

Post by longrod »

Does DCO prevent this kind of thing from happening? I think moves like this demotivated and discourages a lot of potential contributors and spreads fear. That's not a good thing.

Imagine a contributor who's first contribution to Open Source was this project. I am not sure he'd be very happy about a move such as this (or maybe he won't care).

Re: We Are Changing the License for Akka

#264

Post by tsss »

zozbot234 wrote: post #147
scary-size wrote: post #145

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Totally agree. Akka was a huge selling point for Scala. It's a huge loss for the ecosystem. Akka isn't "just" a library, it's a programming model. A lot of software is built around that model and it's going to be a painful effort to get rid of it. It made itself irreplaceable and now they're pulling the plug.

There will just be a fork under a different name, starting from the last freely-licensed version. Right to fork is integral to FLOSS, specifically to protect against the whole "suppliers take the ball and go home" scenario.

Who will maintain it though? It's true that Lightbend is doing almost all of the development. There is no one else who knows the code base and no one willing to learn it, since Akka is pretty uncool nowadays.

Re: We Are Changing the License for Akka

#265

Post by tsss »

weego wrote: post #205
morsch wrote: post #149

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How so? Aren't they the most significant contributor by far?

They've always floundered around trying to find something that stuck that could also have a path to profit. Being around the edges of the tech orgs that went in early on Scala it often felt like the Scala ecosystem initially thrived (the likes of Twitter releasing genuine quality oss in particular) despite the lack-lustre job of Typsesafe / Lightbend to cement themselves at the center. With play being given to the co…

They also developed Slick, which has been abandoned for a while now, unfortunately.

Re: We Are Changing the License for Akka

#266

Post by cheriot »

I only worked with the Akka ecosystem a little, but if I had made a major career or business investment in it I'd be pretty unhappy about this. There's nothing wrong with closed source software and I want the authors to make money. It's changing the terms on users that pulls the rug out from under people.

Re: We Are Changing the License for Akka

#267

Post by bachmeier »

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…

> If they changed their mind later to make the project proprietary, still full respect.

If "they" doesn't include all previous contributors, I can see an argument to the contrary.

Re: We Are Changing the License for Akka

#268

Post by bachmeier »

beebmam wrote: post #246
colordrops wrote: post #235

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

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

So you mean everyone that contributed when the project was FOSS should be paid for their labor when this ceases to be FOSS?

Re: We Are Changing the License for Akka

#269

Post by Floegipoky »

Man, this is so disappointing.

Sure, there are probably businesses out there whose entire livelihood is built on akka, and I get that the creators might be upset that they're not contributing to the project. But there are a lot of other businesses out there where this might be a great solution for a very small part of the problem space, and they are just never going to use this tech now. A few years ago I used akka at my current gig for a project that ended up fizzling, and had always hoped to re-introduce it if another appropriate opportunity emerged. This change makes that a non-starter.

I also think this is a big blow in terms of the future of computing. The actor model is so useful, and it's taken so long to come close to mainstream. And now the biggest implementation shoves a giant stick in its own spoke.

Re: We Are Changing the License for Akka

#270

Post by sidlls »

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…

People who give their labor away for free aren’t entitled to anything. They should stop engaging in the farce that is open source these days if they feel that strongly about it
Post reply on HN