No more open source.
Vendors who provide competitive services built on our community products will no longer be able to incorporate future releases, bug fixes, or security patches contributed to our products.
Wow, they’re gambling a lot that people won’t migrate to a FOSS fork.
People contributed to HashiCorp products - the software is not something solely made by HashiCorp. This might technically be legal under their CLA and indeed even in the absence of the CLA, under the Apache License, but it certainly isn’t fair to people who contributed to it voluntarily in the expectation it would form part of a Free software project.
I think maybe the best way to combat this type of thing in the future is if F/L/OSS communities (i.e. everyone who contributes to a project without being paid) starts: 1) preferencing copyleft projects over BSD/MIT type licenses, and 2) refusing to sign any kind of CLA (maybe with an exception for obligate non-profit organisations). Then, companies will either have to pick developing entirely at their own cost, or to accept contributions on the incoming=outgoing model, meaning they are also bound by the copyleft licence and are forced to keep it as Free software. That would end the bait-and-switch of getting people to work on your product for free and then saying “surprise suckers, it’s no longer Free software!”.
Where I don’t disagree with anything you say here, someone who contributes to a project with a license like this should already be aware and have accepted that it may ultimately be taken out of their hands, and that’s fine if that’s what they want to do. In fact, I prefer it for some types of software (I can’t think of a better way to promote adoption of reference designs such as TCP/IP). That said, if the idea of working with a group and losing control or access to it is a problem for you, then by all means don’t do so and tell others of the risks.
Yep my go to is MIT for libraries/frameworks and GPL for full applications. I don’t want to restrict the use of my libraries to only GPL code unless I have a specific reason to do so.
All the contributions are still open, we just have to fork it - which is exactly what I’m waiting for
Time to use an open alternative!
Aw man… and I was just thinking about deploying Nomad in my homelab…
Did you read the post from them? You are not affected.
deleted by creator
Yes but is that affecting you businesswise, for example using terraform for proviosioning infrastructure for a customer? As far as I understand this move it affects companies like gruntwork who makes a business on top of terraform with terragrunt. Dont get me wrong, I do dislike this change also but saying „it is not open source anymore“ is just wrong. It is still open source but its usage changed for companies making a dollar here or there with technologies they dont develop.
deleted by creator
Do you have access to the source code?
It is. You mix free software and open source, their often but not always the same.
deleted by creator
I see no discrimination here lol. Look up licenses and stop dreaming.
That is a rather short sighted interpretation of what is happening I feel. Essentially the company is moving from FLOSS to “free as in beer”, which will very likely affect the product in the long run.
Not quite, it‘s only restricting competitors and so all companies and home labbers can still use it for free and contribute as in free speech.
However this can bring a lot more financial sustainability to a project. I don‘t know the specifics, but the main problem is that companies make profit of the software, but don’t invest enough money back into the product. This cannot be good for users. Open source must be financially stable.
Also right now all those competitors (and users) can create a fork and maintain it. So it is up to the community what will happen to the project.
Sure, but it’s a question of principle. I try to use and support FLOSS software if possible.
This is your choice of course.
deleted by creator
Switch over to pulumi, it’s essentially the same thing
deleted by creator
Then you are good either way. All of the IaC tools generally revolve around the same principles, they just express them in different ways. Learning terraform is definitely not a waste, you’ll be able to transfer what you learned to other tools like pulimi, CDK or what have you pretty easily.
If you were to buy into a technology for a long time project, then I’d encourage you giving the alternatives a closer look.
Fuuuuuuu. I really liked nomad.
i know someone i used to work with who went there because he was effectively their employee bc of how much he contributed via open source and in community
capitalism bullshit strikes again
People might not like this change, but if it helps them makes money that gets put back into the project maybe that is a good thing (for those who does not know, it converts to a open source license after four years), maybe that is better then a open core model.
Yeah. I’ve always thought timed open source was probably a sweet spot, but I don’t have a lot of trust that companies will actually follow through on the open license at the end, so it doesn’t buy my goodwill just yet.
IANAL but don’t think they can opted out of it , it’s part of the license
Effective on the Change Date, or the fourth anniversary of the first publicly available distribution of a specific version of the Licensed Work under this License, whichever comes first, the Licensor hereby grants you rights under the terms of the Change License, and the rights granted in the paragraph above terminate.
Neat.
Was considering Vault but yeah, no. I hope there’s a good alternative
