> It’s a sort of screwed-up incentive process in a way because the better Akka is, the less we are likely to get paid for [supporting] it. It’s been so reliable; we’ve had customers running it in production for years without any hiccups.
This makes sense. If they’re not able to make a living off maintaining this software and adding new features they need to change something.
Some people will say that the license they’ve chosen (BSL) is not true open source, and it isn’t. We’ve all benefited both as developers and consumers from the fruits of the open source movement, but that doesn’t mean it’s the only way to do things. In this case, a source available license isn’t the worst thing.
Lastly, $3000 per core seems really, really steep. There’s just no way I would be able to make a case for that in any org I’ve worked in.
This makes sense. If they’re not able to make a living off maintaining this software and adding new features they need to change something.
Some people will say that the license they’ve chosen (BSL) is not true open source, and it isn’t. We’ve all benefited both as developers and consumers from the fruits of the open source movement, but that doesn’t mean it’s the only way to do things. In this case, a source available license isn’t the worst thing.
Lastly, $3000 per core seems really, really steep. There’s just no way I would be able to make a case for that in any org I’ve worked in.