Comment by poulpy123

> I didn't know the licence and had a look, but I don't see what is bullshit with it.

I just think it's a proprietary license that is trying to LARP as an OSS license. It sneaks in language that makes it so it's unclear how much it will actually cost you to use it. It makes me terrified to import anything touching it because I don't want to risk accidentally costing my employer millions of dollars.

I don't really see how it's "pretty close" to an OSS license. Part of an OSS license is that I can use the code for whatever I want, which is decidedly not the case with BUSL. I do appreciate that stuff eventually becomes Apache, so I guess that's better than nothing, but I'd rather just avoid the stuff entirely, or only use the Apache licensed stuff.

I also don't really like the idea that I could contribute to Akka, have my contributions being monetized by Lightbend, but I'm not even allowed to use my own contributions without paying them a fee. I know that CLAs aren't exactly new in the OSS world, but at least if I were to make a contribution to Ubuntu, I'm still allowed to run Ubuntu server for free, with my contributions included.

I guess the license just kind of feels "Bait and Switch" to me. It tries to get you to think that it's OSS and then smacks you with a "JK IT'S PROPRIETARY".

> If your employer is not providing its software open source, there is nothing shocking to have to pay for the software used

Sure, except in the case of Akka there's enough competition in the Java library world that I don't think that it's worth it. Vert.x is comparable, and the license is less likely to accidentally cost me lots of money.

I mostly think that Akka's licensing is way too expensive too, again especially when you consider that there's a good chunk of concurrency libraries in Java-land that have more business-friendly licenses.