61–70 of 127 posts
Okay, so while this title is technically true , it is phrased in a way to incite panic. Just to be clear, AWS/Hashicorp is NOT beginning to charge people for the use of Terraform modules.
As much as I hate what Russia is doing, I’d hate even more for software to come under political purviews. If an author of a library chooses to apply political condition(however justified they may be), then the software is simply not free by definition. I’m neither Russian nor Ukrainian. I cannot turn a blind eye simply because it doesn’t apply to me. What if another library that I use apply a license that says “those…
You would hate a statement being added to README file EVEN MORE than civilians being shelled indiscriminately, entire families shot while waiting in bread lines, and the targeting of war correspondents by a foreign army?
Got it.
This license change appears to affect not just the EKS module, but all the modules in the terraform-aws-modules organization. For example, here is the same change in their VPC module: https://github.com/terraform-aws-modules/terraform-aws-vpc/c...
I have updated the wording in README - https://github.com/terraform-aws-modules/terraform-aws-vpc#a... . The project was and will be under the same Apache 2 license.
Hi. I am Anton Babenko, maintainer (ukrainian by heart) here. I have updated the wording in README to state the facts about Russia (facts with links to wikipedia) - https://github.com/terraform-aws-modules/terraform-aws-eks#a... It was never my intention to make changes in a license in any way. It would be just wrong to drop 5+ years of my life working on all terraform-aws-modules and betray everyone who have been pa…
Okay, so while this title is technically true , it is phrased in a way to incite panic. Just to be clear, AWS/Hashicorp is NOT beginning to charge people for the use of Terraform modules.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> but you can't just make up your own rules Sure you can. Your project, your rules.
Sure, but you can't make up your own definition of the Apache 2.0 license, which was the point of the original comment (and the PR in question).
"You may add Your own copyright statement to Your modifications and may provide additional or different license terms and conditions for use, reproduction, or distribution of Your modifications, or for any such Derivative Works as a whole, provided Your use, reproduction, and distribution of the Work otherwise complies with the conditions stated in this License." [0]
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yes. "I don't want politics in X" (software, video games, etc) mean "I support the status quo" which is by itself a political position - and often a privileged one.
But i dont support the status quo lol. I just dont want to have someones political opinion shoved down my throat wherever i go.
There really needs to be a history class for developers.
It sucks to have to agree with someone that you don't fundamentally agree with but I think the author of the PR is correct. This is a modification of the Apache license and while I appreciate and support their stance, it does seem to mean that the license is non compliant. I support anyone's desire to protest things (no matter which side I'm on) but you can't just make up your own rules.
How exactly do you fundamentally disagree with the author of the PR? He literally did no statements beyond saying that this is not an Apache License anymore.