4 ms·
A lot of “open source means I get to use the software for free and tell the authors what to do, forever, while not contributing a thing in return” in this threa
by avalys 4y ago
A lot of “open source means I get to use the software for free and tell the authors what to do, forever, while not contributing a thing in return” in this thread.
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]
- exnot 4y agoThat's bullshit and you should know it. The owners got a shitload in return with developers investing time and money into learning their product and suggesting it be used, fueling any side-businesses that the Akka folks had. This was never open source in the true spirit of open source and yet they touted this strong brand. The same thing has happened several times, especially in the database space. Use the "fake open source" strategy to lure developers and then bait and switch. It's good business, but disingenuous. They remove a core implied premise, akin to a lie. If they were upfront from the beginning regarding eventually cashing in with heavy fees or cutting off contributions, community, etc, then it would be a very different case and there would have been no deception. This is deception.
- avalys 4y agoAnyone working on an Apache-licensed project should expect this might happen, since it is explicitly allowed by the terms of the license. If they are going to get upset about it they could decide to only contribute to GPL-licensed software?