7 ms·

It seems like Lightbend have decided themselves to redefine what "Open Source" means for them, a slight warning sign of whats to come. > Sadly, open source is

It seems like Lightbend have decided themselves to redefine what "Open Source" means for them, a slight warning sign of whats to come. > Sadly, open source is prone to the infamous “Tragedy of the commons”, [...] This situation is not sustainable and one in which everyone eventually loses. > So what does sustainable open source look like? I believe it’s where everyone—users and developers—contributes and are in it together, sharing accountability and ownership. > This means that companies using the software for profit need to give something back, either code, documentation, community work, or money. In sustainable open source, participants feel the need and moral obligation to contribute. They even go so far to say they believe BSL to be Open Source, which means they fundamentally misunderstand the idea behind Open Source: > We believe the BSL 1.1 with our open source grants and Apache re-license is a form of productive and sustainable open source. They also seem to not know of any big Apache projects that are sustainable, even though there are many examples out in the wild. Apparently none of those projects are sustainable, just because Lightbend didn't manage to actually get major contributors to their own project? > Apache 2.0 is a very liberal license well suited for early, small open source projects establishing community. > With Akka now considered critical infrastructure for many large organizations, the Apache 2.0 model becomes increasingly risky when a small company solely carries the maintenance effort. Just because you didn't manage to build a company around a Open Source library/ecosystem, doesn't mean Open Source is not sustainable. It just means that your company is not sustainable. But I guess it's hard to blame yourself when you see others using your code without paying for it.

nine_k 4y ago
I think they clearly state that the fresh versions are not open source, they are "source available". After 3 years since release the code automatically gets relicensed under Apache 2.0 and becomes open source. This is a nice provision that prevents the code from being completely lost if the company loses interest in it.
- capableweb 4y ago
  They state that BSL + Apache re-license after 3 years is "open source". It's not, it's delayed open source if anything. But doing BSL is not open source, at least as what we know open source to be today.
- arinlen 4y ago
  > I think they clearly state that the fresh versions are not open source, they are "source available". To me it reads like they chose to switch to a proprietary license but don't want to be subjected to the natural consequences of betraying the trust of their userbase.
  - froh 4y ago
    isn't their point the breach of trust of large (>25mio revenue) business users of their software to not contribute financially to the developer staff (subscription)? open source creators are systematically abused by large companies who free ride despite being able to financially contribute, and they just don't because they can. "why give the creator a fair share if you can keep them alive with a few graceful breadcrumbs" seems to be such corporations way of thinking, highly profitable formally but the FOSS creators. thus an agpl, thus the new Akka license.
- KingOfCoders 4y ago
  From my perspective the challenge is, what happens if there is a critical bug found after 3 years and you're on the Apache version? Do they backport the fix (out of kindness)? I've jumped through many hoops in the past to pay for fixes to older open source systems - because the systems weren't properly updated - to get a patch, and it was never easy (and fixing this yourself is nearly impossible if the bug isn't obvious, and you don't want to break things in such a core technology).
  - dudul 4y ago
    I believe a section of the FAQ mentions that the previous versions (released under Apache) will no longer receive any updates and you're not allowed to integrate the changes to the newer versions into the older codebase.
- PeterZaitsev 4y ago
  Yes but also they claim "We Believe In A Model Of Sustainable Open Source" where their actions say what they believe what you can't built Sustainable Business around Open Source and Source Available License is required. I've seen companies claiming "but you can use our buggy unsecure code after 3 years" but reality I'm yet to see actually anyone using this with BSL software.
cardanome 4y ago
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. They are not the first company to adapt their license to the changing circumstances, see Elastic.
- arinlen 4y ago
  > Not many people would have imagined that the monopolists would weaponize open source like they do now. What do you think "weaponize open source" means? It doesn't look like it means a thing, and lounds like a poor attempt at shoehorning "weapon" in a discussion on how a potential user's income is something noteworthy.
  - cardanome 4y ago
    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. Liberal open source licenses are the perfect weapon for the monopolists because they ensure an "equal" playing field, meaning they have access to the same tech that smaller companies have. All things being equal, they can always crush the competition with their market position.
    - arinlen 4y ago
      > 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 weapon for the monopolists because they ensure an "equal" playing field, meaning they have access to the same tech that smaller companies have. Your comment makes zero sense. FLOSS is about ensuring the right to use, fix, and alter software. It's not about people with a axe to grind about competitors providing a better service. The only weapon I see here is people trying to abuse the concept of FLOSS to complain about their inability to profit from other people's software because others do a better job.
bjornsing 4y ago
> Just because you didn't manage to build a company around a Open Source library/ecosystem, doesn't mean Open Source is not sustainable. It just means that your company is not sustainable. But I guess it's hard to blame yourself when you see others using your code without paying for it. This almost religious attitude makes no sense to me. Clearly other’s use of that code wasn’t very sustainable, since the author now says they will no longer maintain it for free. You’re essentially describing the “everyone looses” outcome that the OP wants to address, but you seem to think it’s a good outcome.
- capableweb 4y ago
  The author is saying "we're the only major contributor to Akka, open source isn't sustainable!" without considering/trying to address why they are the only major contributor to Akka. Plenty of big Apache projects have major contributors from multiple projects/ecosystems/companies, without having to change the license to something not Apache. Since it's clearly possible to have sustainable projects licensed under Apache, I'm saying that it sounds more like an excuse rather than a proper argument for the license change.
  - hobofan 4y ago
    > Since it's clearly possible to have sustainable projects licensed under Apache Just because it's possible for _some_ projects to live sustainable and be licensed under Apache, doesn't mean that it's possible for all projects to be developed sustainably under that license.
    - capableweb 4y ago
      > doesn't mean that it's possible for all projects to be developed sustainably under that license Absolutely, I agree with that, it doesn't give you the right to be sustainable, merely the chance. What I find weird is claiming that Akka is unsustainable because it's open source, when there are others who are open source and sustainable.
      - 4y ago
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]

nine_k 4y ago

I think they clearly state that the fresh versions are not open source, they are "source available". After 3 years since release the code automatically gets relicensed under Apache 2.0 and becomes open source. This is a nice provision that prevents the code from being completely lost if the company loses interest in it.

capableweb 4y ago
They state that BSL + Apache re-license after 3 years is "open source". It's not, it's delayed open source if anything. But doing BSL is not open source, at least as what we know open source to be today.
arinlen 4y ago
> I think they clearly state that the fresh versions are not open source, they are "source available". To me it reads like they chose to switch to a proprietary license but don't want to be subjected to the natural consequences of betraying the trust of their userbase.
- froh 4y ago
  isn't their point the breach of trust of large (>25mio revenue) business users of their software to not contribute financially to the developer staff (subscription)? open source creators are systematically abused by large companies who free ride despite being able to financially contribute, and they just don't because they can. "why give the creator a fair share if you can keep them alive with a few graceful breadcrumbs" seems to be such corporations way of thinking, highly profitable formally but the FOSS creators. thus an agpl, thus the new Akka license.
KingOfCoders 4y ago
From my perspective the challenge is, what happens if there is a critical bug found after 3 years and you're on the Apache version? Do they backport the fix (out of kindness)? I've jumped through many hoops in the past to pay for fixes to older open source systems - because the systems weren't properly updated - to get a patch, and it was never easy (and fixing this yourself is nearly impossible if the bug isn't obvious, and you don't want to break things in such a core technology).
- dudul 4y ago
  I believe a section of the FAQ mentions that the previous versions (released under Apache) will no longer receive any updates and you're not allowed to integrate the changes to the newer versions into the older codebase.
PeterZaitsev 4y ago
Yes but also they claim "We Believe In A Model Of Sustainable Open Source" where their actions say what they believe what you can't built Sustainable Business around Open Source and Source Available License is required. I've seen companies claiming "but you can use our buggy unsecure code after 3 years" but reality I'm yet to see actually anyone using this with BSL software.

cardanome 4y ago

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. They are not the first company to adapt their license to the changing circumstances, see Elastic.

arinlen 4y ago
> Not many people would have imagined that the monopolists would weaponize open source like they do now. What do you think "weaponize open source" means? It doesn't look like it means a thing, and lounds like a poor attempt at shoehorning "weapon" in a discussion on how a potential user's income is something noteworthy.
- cardanome 4y ago
  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. Liberal open source licenses are the perfect weapon for the monopolists because they ensure an "equal" playing field, meaning they have access to the same tech that smaller companies have. All things being equal, they can always crush the competition with their market position.
  - arinlen 4y ago
    > 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 weapon for the monopolists because they ensure an "equal" playing field, meaning they have access to the same tech that smaller companies have. Your comment makes zero sense. FLOSS is about ensuring the right to use, fix, and alter software. It's not about people with a axe to grind about competitors providing a better service. The only weapon I see here is people trying to abuse the concept of FLOSS to complain about their inability to profit from other people's software because others do a better job.

bjornsing 4y ago

> Just because you didn't manage to build a company around a Open Source library/ecosystem, doesn't mean Open Source is not sustainable. It just means that your company is not sustainable. But I guess it's hard to blame yourself when you see others using your code without paying for it. This almost religious attitude makes no sense to me. Clearly other’s use of that code wasn’t very sustainable, since the author now says they will no longer maintain it for free. You’re essentially describing the “everyone looses” outcome that the OP wants to address, but you seem to think it’s a good outcome.

capableweb 4y ago
The author is saying "we're the only major contributor to Akka, open source isn't sustainable!" without considering/trying to address why they are the only major contributor to Akka. Plenty of big Apache projects have major contributors from multiple projects/ecosystems/companies, without having to change the license to something not Apache. Since it's clearly possible to have sustainable projects licensed under Apache, I'm saying that it sounds more like an excuse rather than a proper argument for the license change.
- hobofan 4y ago
  > Since it's clearly possible to have sustainable projects licensed under Apache Just because it's possible for _some_ projects to live sustainable and be licensed under Apache, doesn't mean that it's possible for all projects to be developed sustainably under that license.
  - capableweb 4y ago
    > doesn't mean that it's possible for all projects to be developed sustainably under that license Absolutely, I agree with that, it doesn't give you the right to be sustainable, merely the chance. What I find weird is claiming that Akka is unsustainable because it's open source, when there are others who are open source and sustainable.
    - 4y ago

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]