131–140 of 360 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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?
Earlier 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…
It's funny to see how HN flipped on this subject. My company was stung by Handsontable switching to a proprietary license https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19488642 and the top comment back in 2019 was "Great to hear".
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That's more or less what SSPL is. The problem is the OSI and FSF are basically religious pharisees, so dedicated to their texts, they're missing the actual point . People backing the OSI/Amazon over Elastic/Mongo/etc. are literally killing open source.
> People backing the OSI/Amazon over Elastic/Mongo/etc. are literally killing open source. AGPL, the license Mongo was originally under, isn't used in reality to prevent deployed applications from hoarding changes; rather, it used to scare commercial entities away from deploying your code. With a commercial CLA providing exclusive code ownership, it allows you a legal club to block others, even other contributors, fr…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> 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 wea…
> about competitors providing a better service The point is you can NOT outcompete Amazon on that as a smaller company. They have economics of scale on their side, brand recognition, marketing budget, the whole AWS ecosystem that locks developers in. Even if you offered a better and cheaper service (which is not really realistic) then most customers would stick to AWS because they are hosting everything else on it an…
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.
Your akka license now costs €32k per year. Meanwhile if you are doing standard five year deprecation your 16 core machine is 4k. This means you are paying 8x the cost of the machine itself for the software license. An important software license but not one that is a full complete piece of work.
I could understand paying this much for software like Wowza where it is a "complete" solution for a problem. Where you are buying a full piece of software, but not a developer framework.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
[deleted]
"the Apache 2.0 model becomes increasingly risky when a small company solely carries the maintenance effort". Really? Then why are you reverting to that licence after 3 years?
Other projects changing the licence have at least spelled it out honestly: Cloud companies like Amazon are seen as parasitic and the developers of highly successful open source projects want a slice of the pie.
I would argue that akka is successful because of the permissive licence. Now that that's changed, it will create growing space for other projects.
Now, Akka came out at the right time and deserved to get popular. It's built on a solid and battle-tested foundation and there is a real community-driven ecosystem around it, or at least there was. It totally made sense. Also Lightbend was on a seemingly good trajectory, and Akka looked like a safe bet.
I guarantee there are small teams out there, at big companies making well over $25m, who are probably overstretched already and now need to plan an unexpected migration. I love Scala but the maintenance burden is real.