4 ms·

The reason it brings people out of the woodworks is the way that it erodes trust. How many more people will decide that they deserve more money, and relicense t

The reason it brings people out of the woodworks is the way that it erodes trust. How many more people will decide that they deserve more money, and relicense their software, leaving me in a bind? I used to know that software licenses were generally stable, and an Apache2.0 project was safe to use, and I could contribute and use the software knowing generally that my contributions would be part of something that continued to become greater over time. Now, I don't know if I can contribute (which includes usage, because the more I use it, the better I understand it and the more confidently I can recommend it and help others to use it) to software that's trying to do the OSS paid support model, because that company might decide at any point that they're not "getting enough value" and relicense to terms that don't work for me, thus causing me to need to either live with the software as is, no bugfixes or new features, or rework it out of my architecture.

braingenious 4y ago
This is where I don’t fully understand what “trust” means here. It kind of sounds like it’s “trusting” that users will be able to profit from the software in perpetuity at the expense of the developer. Isn’t one of the core ideals of FOSS forking? If you’re certain that no other person could possibly fork a piece of software and provide bug fixes and new features, isn’t that a tacit admission that the primary maintainer is the only person on earth that could do so? If I were the only person on earth that could write a bit of software, I would not do that for free. It would be downright weird and entitled to expect that from me. If I wasn’t the only person on earth that could write such code, I would happily watch and encourage the people that prefer to have an Apache 2.0 licensed derivative of the original work.
- andrewstuart2 4y ago
  Interesting that you went to profit immediately. Much of my use of OSS is personal and for fun and because I believe it makes the world a better place that I can run things like Linux and postgres and get so much out of my computer that would never be possible if I had to pay for all of this. Furthermore, I don't like doing things many different ways, because it's a waste of time and energy, so I try to bring my experience with me when I work somewhere. And I give back in the form of my own free and generously licensed software contributions. Akka may have been steered by a group of people incentivised financially to support it, through support agreements or whatever, but it currently has 774 contributors. And frankly, never would have become what it is if it started closed source. Probably wouldn't have gotten off the ground honestly, as something open source would have eaten its lunch. I don't use it, but the idea that I can use something anywhere in perpetuity is part of why I choose to use and give back to FOSS. Many feel the same. Sure. Anybody can fork the software and maintain it. I love that OpenSearch did exactly that when Elastic decided it wanted money for something built on the efforts of a community. But I also know that forks are another waste of energy. Maintaining two branches that do similar things is silly if I can let you do your job while I do mine. I'm not maintaining my own OS, or my own database, or my own terminal, etc etc. Add to that, how many individuals would be willing to fork when one branch has demonstrated a willingness to make choices in favor of money? It makes me wonder if they'll also push for patents or law suits against those who might add features to Akka Prime or some cleverly named fork. Frankly, I don't use Akka and I'm definitely not going to now, so as far as I'm concerned, Akka is more than welcome to sign their own death warrant. But this trend of building software with community contributions and then trying to profit from it is worrisome and frankly, pretty close to theft. I don't see any of these companies retroactively paying their contributors, so it's definitely not about "what's right." It's a cash grab branded as sustainability, and it has a chilling effect for me, that pushes against the ideals of OSS.
  - braingenious 4y ago
    >Interesting that you went to profit immediately. Much of my use of OSS is personal and for fun and because I believe it makes the world a better place Akka’s new license only charges entities that are making $25 million dollars per year. I do not think this impacts hobbyist’s ability to play around with it, so yes, profit is a very obvious point to bring up. The only limitation is literally on organizations that are massively profiting off of it. It’s also “interesting” that you didn’t address my questions aside from: >I also know that forks are another waste of energy. That is not knowledge that I share. I was under the impression that lots of good software has been built by forking other good software but maybe I’m wrong! >Frankly, I don't use Akka and I'm definitely not going to now, so as far as I'm concerned, Akka is more than welcome to sign their own death warrant. Why on earth are you so enthusiastic about this software then? Are you shelving your plans to build a $25 million per year business on top of this software? Is that what normally happens when you play around with OSS for fun? As for their death warrants, I hope they sign some big fat checks instead of doing free work to impress random people that have a convenient quasi-religious morality of “money for me but not for thee”

braingenious 4y ago

This is where I don’t fully understand what “trust” means here. It kind of sounds like it’s “trusting” that users will be able to profit from the software in perpetuity at the expense of the developer. Isn’t one of the core ideals of FOSS forking? If you’re certain that no other person could possibly fork a piece of software and provide bug fixes and new features, isn’t that a tacit admission that the primary maintainer is the only person on earth that could do so? If I were the only person on earth that could write a bit of software, I would not do that for free. It would be downright weird and entitled to expect that from me. If I wasn’t the only person on earth that could write such code, I would happily watch and encourage the people that prefer to have an Apache 2.0 licensed derivative of the original work.

andrewstuart2 4y ago
Interesting that you went to profit immediately. Much of my use of OSS is personal and for fun and because I believe it makes the world a better place that I can run things like Linux and postgres and get so much out of my computer that would never be possible if I had to pay for all of this. Furthermore, I don't like doing things many different ways, because it's a waste of time and energy, so I try to bring my experience with me when I work somewhere. And I give back in the form of my own free and generously licensed software contributions. Akka may have been steered by a group of people incentivised financially to support it, through support agreements or whatever, but it currently has 774 contributors. And frankly, never would have become what it is if it started closed source. Probably wouldn't have gotten off the ground honestly, as something open source would have eaten its lunch. I don't use it, but the idea that I can use something anywhere in perpetuity is part of why I choose to use and give back to FOSS. Many feel the same. Sure. Anybody can fork the software and maintain it. I love that OpenSearch did exactly that when Elastic decided it wanted money for something built on the efforts of a community. But I also know that forks are another waste of energy. Maintaining two branches that do similar things is silly if I can let you do your job while I do mine. I'm not maintaining my own OS, or my own database, or my own terminal, etc etc. Add to that, how many individuals would be willing to fork when one branch has demonstrated a willingness to make choices in favor of money? It makes me wonder if they'll also push for patents or law suits against those who might add features to Akka Prime or some cleverly named fork. Frankly, I don't use Akka and I'm definitely not going to now, so as far as I'm concerned, Akka is more than welcome to sign their own death warrant. But this trend of building software with community contributions and then trying to profit from it is worrisome and frankly, pretty close to theft. I don't see any of these companies retroactively paying their contributors, so it's definitely not about "what's right." It's a cash grab branded as sustainability, and it has a chilling effect for me, that pushes against the ideals of OSS.
- braingenious 4y ago
  >Interesting that you went to profit immediately. Much of my use of OSS is personal and for fun and because I believe it makes the world a better place Akka’s new license only charges entities that are making $25 million dollars per year. I do not think this impacts hobbyist’s ability to play around with it, so yes, profit is a very obvious point to bring up. The only limitation is literally on organizations that are massively profiting off of it. It’s also “interesting” that you didn’t address my questions aside from: >I also know that forks are another waste of energy. That is not knowledge that I share. I was under the impression that lots of good software has been built by forking other good software but maybe I’m wrong! >Frankly, I don't use Akka and I'm definitely not going to now, so as far as I'm concerned, Akka is more than welcome to sign their own death warrant. Why on earth are you so enthusiastic about this software then? Are you shelving your plans to build a $25 million per year business on top of this software? Is that what normally happens when you play around with OSS for fun? As for their death warrants, I hope they sign some big fat checks instead of doing free work to impress random people that have a convenient quasi-religious morality of “money for me but not for thee”