Lead up to the discussion to be found here btw: https://github.com/mdedetrich/akka-apache-project/discussions/8
Anyhow, sticking with the akka package name is considered a legal swamp by most involved. ASL 2 doesn't grant trademarks but you still have the matching contract argument (as exist for java.* and the many distributions of java), but that means that you need to make every effort to stay 100% compatible (counter example Microsofts 2000 era JVM), which means staying a 3 year delay downstream (like CentOS now Rocky linux) and risk due to muddy waters when it comes to security fixes. So I think akka.* package releases are off the table. The only way that would have been possible was by a formal Software Grant by Lightbend, which included the trademark, which clearly is not the case. On Wed, Nov 9, 2022 at 7:31 AM Alexandru Nedelcu <[email protected]> wrote: > On Wed, Nov 9, 2022, at 07:23, Greg Methvin wrote: > > If Pekko uses a different package name, most of those libraries will need > > to support Akka users that are not ready to migrate to Pekko, so they > will > > need to release equivalent versions for Akka and Pekko at the same time. > > That will probably not be too hard if we have a tool to migrate an Akka > > codebase to Pekko, but it will definitely complicate things for more > > complex projects like Play. > > One thing to keep in mind is that releasing Pekko under a different > package name is the only way libraries are able to support both, the only > way forward. We can't publish with the same group id on Maven Central, > therefore we cannot evict Akka from the classpath, therefore both can be > and will be on the classpath at the same time. > > For both libraries and users, having Pekko use the same package name would > be an absolute nightmare for both libraries and apps, because you then have > to manually manage exclusions in your build. Because both Pekko and Akka > tend to be transitive dependencies. > > Play Framework's development, AFAIK, was donated and is no longer > sponsored by Lightbend. I loved Play Framework and I used it in many > projects over the years, the only framework for Scala that brought us the > "Ruby on Rails" experience. > > Personally, I can no longer touch it, as long as it depends on Akka, > because its API assumes usage of actors, and so it's a minefield. I don't > know the future, but if we're taking bets, I'd bet that Play Framework will > fully migrate to Pekko and leave Akka completely behind 🤷♂️ because > that's the only way forward for FOSS projects like it. This is just a > personal opinion of course, but I'm sure I'm not alone in thinking that > Play, like Akka, is a hot potato right now for many projects. And the > difference b/w Play and Akka is that for Akka at least you have commercial > development and support available. > > My prediction is that if Pekko turns out to be a viable fork, the entire > FOSS ecosystem around Akka will turn around to depend on it, instead of > Akka; so trying to use the same package name would be just a short-term fix > that can only cause problems. There's a big IF in there, of course 🙂 > > -- > Alexandru Nedelcu > alexn.org > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] > For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected] > >
