201–210 of 360 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's not free any more for companies >$25M in annual revenue .
It's not gratis anymore for companies >$25M in annual revenue. It's not free as in speech anymore for anyone.
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…
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…
They will be free to continue using the version of Akka they currently use. If there was ever any assumption of future free versions, without remuneration, that was misguided. Akka could have been abandoned at any moment.
If management blamed me for the company blissfully reaping the benefits of open source, I would be glad to work elsewhere. The customers of Akka have gotten exactly as much as they have paid for.
- I will be excited to see if a new jvm actor system emerges as a competitor. Or perhaps a fork.
- I would be excited to see more consideration given to Elixir and OTP, where previously Akka may have been favored.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It is open source for me as I will never earn more than US $25 million in annual revenue. If I ever do, I will gladly pay them. I disagree with the idea that the only correct definition of open source is the one that favors big tech monopolists. Times have changed compared to when the open source movement started. Not many people would have imagined that the monopolists would weaponize open source like they do now. T…
Time have changed and it is well possible there is a need and room for source available licenses. Open Source is established term which offers specific freedoms which brings specific benefits (and challenges) to businesses. While many Venture funded companies might want you to believe they are being unfairly taken advantage by the clouds it is not the full story. Elastic for example relies on A LOT of code contribute…
There's basically been a resounding "Meh" about them and the people who work on software that adopts them generally move to an open fork or the project perishes (see also the fate of Solaris, Illumos, and Oracle.)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The trajectory of Lightbend has been raising doubts for a while, some would argue since the renaming. One important change coming with Scala 3 is precisely that its future doesn't depend on Lightbend's financial success anymore.
How so? Aren't they the most significant contributor by far?
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 community, lagom being underwhelming and a bit of a catch-the-wave thing, it's only really Akka that endures on top of the core language, which isn't really a great showing after so long.
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…
Which is exactly why this is so unreasonable. The minimum spend for the "standard" license is 40 cores -- which means you're paying at least $80k/yr for a support contract which won't even assign you an account manager or guarantee a response any faster than "4 business days" (yes, really). And as you scale up, it only gets more expensive, and you don't get anything more for your money.
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…
If you have all the information about the pricing model up front you can make good decisions about using the software or not. If the pricing model changes your decisions can get invalidates and might require serious effort to remove the dependency on that piece of software.
The "Tragedy of the Commons" is not the same thing as the "Free-Rider Problem" - in the former case, individual overuse is the issue, where in the latter (as in F/OSS) the problem is the failure to muster the necessary resources.
Does Akka.NET have any licensing dependencies on Akka? I wonder if this will push people there (please go to F#) or Elixir and Erlang.