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

31–40 of 360 posts

Re: We Are Changing the License for Akka

#31

Post by doikor »

xanathar wrote: post #11

> 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…

> change the license at the last minute.

This is after 13 years of support not "last minute".

Re: We Are Changing the License for Akka

#33

Post by JonChesterfield »

capableweb wrote: post #24
keewee7 wrote: post #17

Isn't Akka an important component in various Scala projects like Apache Spark? What are they supposed to do?

Other libraries depending on Akka shouldn't have to change, as they are merely published as "libraries", not deployed to "production". Libraries generally never have "annual revenues more than US $25m", so it should be free for them to use the code as well. Realistically though, they force you to contact them to get a "Additional Use Grant" in case you want to use Akka for other open source projects: > I use Akka for…

And if the library using akka is in production? Presumably then fees time, as otherwise a thin shim called 'akkalib' that forwards calls would be an escape hatch.

Re: We Are Changing the License for Akka

#34

Post by ocdtrekkie »

WatchDog wrote: post #18
chsreekar wrote: post #13

It's not just about revenue generation. I bet they are doing this to prevent Amazon from deploying a version of Akka as a service on AWS.

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.

Re: We Are Changing the License for Akka

#35

Post by braingenious »

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 license… and don’t think they could or should pay a licensing fee when they (inevitably?) hit that revenue target?

Re: We Are Changing the License for Akka

#36

Post by JonChesterfield »

mpol wrote: post #8
josephcsible wrote: post #3

tl;dr: It's changing from the Apache License, which is FOSS, to the Business Source License, which is neither free nor open source. Hopefully someone starts a copyleft fork of the last FOSS version of Akka and drives Lightbend out of business with it.

To be fair, after 3 years it reverts to the Apache License. I don't think there is much reason for a fork. It is like Ghostscript has always done. I can understand the change might feel a bit sour, but wanting to drive them out of business is a bit much I think. Also, this software sounds like it is mostly used by big companies, they can pay up to keep this software going.

Or the three year statement is to discourage a fork and in three years' time they'll reconsider that part and keep it closed.

Re: We Are Changing the License for Akka

#37

Post by saagarjha »

joisig wrote: post #27
xanathar wrote: post #11

> 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…

> But if you decide to open source something, keep your promises, no matter what. Presumably all older versions of the software that were Apache licensed remain so. They are switching to BSL (closed, but source available and each revision switches to Apache licensed 3 years later) going forward. I don't see how this is worse than keeping everything closed source from the start, which is your suggestion? Shouldn't we…

No, because it’s a bait and switch. They attracted a bunch of people to use and contribute to their software because it’s open source. Almost all of them do not have the capacity to maintain their own individual fork of the software. It’s like if you decided to carpool with someone and halfway through they parked the car at the side of the road and switch into another car, leaving you with the original one. I mean, hey, they’re giving you a car to finish your trip! But what if you don’t know how to drive? What if you didn’t plan on spending your next twelve hours focusing on the road? People usually don’t expect their open source software to suddenly go closed source out from under them, just like they don’t expect their carpool buddy to bail on them halfway through the trip.

Re: We Are Changing the License for Akka

#38

Post by hocuspocus »

keewee7 wrote: post #17

Isn't Akka an important component in various Scala projects like Apache Spark? What are they supposed to do?

Akka is an ecosystem on its own. There's no Akka in Spark, Flink, Kafka, nor at the other end of the Scala spectrum, in FP libraries in the Typelevel or Zio ecosystems.

Akka is a part of Play though, which has been abandoned by Lightbend.

Re: We Are Changing the License for Akka

#39

Post by doikor »

capableweb wrote: post #25
MrBuddyCasino wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> But if you decide to open source something, keep your promises, no matter what. I don't understand the sentiment of "once something is OSS, it has to be so forever". They owe you what exactly? More of their free time & money to hold up something you call a "promise" but is just their choice of license made many years ago? They are being reasonable about it, you still get the source, you can still use it for free on…

> I don't understand the sentiment of "once something is OSS, it has to be so forever". They owe you what exactly? If I contributed to the project, I did so under the premise of the LICENSE that was active when I contributed. If I didn't like OSS, I wouldn't have contributed to a OSS project. Them changing the license is a middle-finger to me as a contributor. > Its fine to spend your nights and weekends on passions…

> If I contributed to the project, I did so under the premise of the LICENSE that was active when I contributed. If I didn't like OSS, I wouldn't have contributed to a OSS project. Them changing the license is a middle-finger to me as a contributor.

Whatever you contributed is still available as OSS (the previous version with the old license). Just fork the project and compete with them if you think you can do it better. Lightbend seems to think they can't keep developing OSS Akka in a way that would make them money and thus the change.

Re: We Are Changing the License for Akka

#40

Post by tkfu »

capableweb wrote: post #25
MrBuddyCasino wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> But if you decide to open source something, keep your promises, no matter what. I don't understand the sentiment of "once something is OSS, it has to be so forever". They owe you what exactly? More of their free time & money to hold up something you call a "promise" but is just their choice of license made many years ago? They are being reasonable about it, you still get the source, you can still use it for free on…

> I don't understand the sentiment of "once something is OSS, it has to be so forever". They owe you what exactly? If I contributed to the project, I did so under the premise of the LICENSE that was active when I contributed. If I didn't like OSS, I wouldn't have contributed to a OSS project. Them changing the license is a middle-finger to me as a contributor. > Its fine to spend your nights and weekends on passions…

> If I contributed to the project, I did so under the premise of the LICENSE that was active when I contributed. If I didn't like OSS, I wouldn't have contributed to a OSS project. Them changing the license is a middle-finger to me as a contributor.

No, you contributed under the premise of the LICENSE that was active when you contributed _and the CLA they made you sign before they accepted your PR_, which said that they're allowed to change the license later on if they feel like it. If you think that the company changing the license for future versions is a middle finger, you shouldn't be contributing to projects that make you sign CLAs.

Post reply on HN