3 ms·

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 majo

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.
  - msbarnett 4y ago
    > What I find weird is claiming that Akka is unsustainable because it's open source Akka is Open Source. Akka's authors feel that continuing the status quo is unsustainable. Whether or not it's unsustainable because it's open source to some extent doesn't really matter – perhaps with enough elbow grease on their part they could drum up more community maintainers and make it both sustainable and continuously open source, but that would require putting in yet more uncompensated work on the hope that it might lower their burdens at some point down the road, and come with the issue that more volunteers mean more work trying to coordinate everyone. Or they could just make it source available for the first 3 years and ask for money from the companies using it commercially – there's also no guarantee that this will work, but money will solve more problems in the short term, so I can understand why they made the choice they did.

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.
- msbarnett 4y ago
  > What I find weird is claiming that Akka is unsustainable because it's open source Akka is Open Source. Akka's authors feel that continuing the status quo is unsustainable. Whether or not it's unsustainable because it's open source to some extent doesn't really matter – perhaps with enough elbow grease on their part they could drum up more community maintainers and make it both sustainable and continuously open source, but that would require putting in yet more uncompensated work on the hope that it might lower their burdens at some point down the road, and come with the issue that more volunteers mean more work trying to coordinate everyone. Or they could just make it source available for the first 3 years and ask for money from the companies using it commercially – there's also no guarantee that this will work, but money will solve more problems in the short term, so I can understand why they made the choice they did.