101–110 of 127 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That's why I call it "Additional information for ..." and links to wikipedia (not yet blocked in those countries, I guess). It is the same Apache2 license.
I applaud you for fixing that. As you know, when I wrote my comment, it still said "Additional terms for …"
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> I’d hate even more for software to come under political purviews. 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.
That’s a twisted interpretation of what I wrote. One can be disgusted to a high extent, and then from that baseline even more disgusted by some _added_ on top of it. Just because a despicable thing is happening, one must not justify viewing the whole world through that lens _alone_ and refuse to reason things in other contexts.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Except free software itself is political. There really needs to be a history class for developers.
I don't really think it is. I believe free software is natural. Saying free software is political is like saying freedom is political. How is being against oppression political? Wouldn't that just be considered natural, and the people saying it is a political stance be the ones oppressing trying to make it political?
OK, now get everyone to agree.
Oops, you've just entered politics
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.
This is neither an AWS project nor a HashiCorp project. Why would that even be in question?
At a first glance, "transitions to non-free license" implies that you now have to pay for it. The default isn't "Well I guess non-free means it's still free but not the OSI definition".
People very often do not read beyond the title.
"Community maintained terraform-aws-modules transition to non-OSI-approved license" would probably be more accurate, but not nearly as click-bait.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
lol
Thanks for the downvote and the no-content comment, I guess? I've worked with numerous large Terraform configurations, and the ones that use terraform-aws-modules are harder to maintan, have more churn due to updates of the modules, and are more divorced from the actual underlying cloud resources due to random decisions made by the module authors. I really struggle to understand the reason for using the modules rathe…
> serve very little purpose other than to add a dependency and create problems
You're expressing your opinion as fact in a way that only serves to degrade people who don't agree with you.
Obviously these modules serve a purpose, otherwise the repositories would not have hundreds-to-thousands of github stars/forks, and people would not be arguing about a license change on the front page of HN.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The "Additional terms of use" section makes it non-free. Compare it to the Commons Clause.
I have updated the wording in README - https://github.com/terraform-aws-modules/terraform-aws-eks#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…
I hope you and your loved ones are safe and weathering this this war of aggression as best as possible. I hope your homeland remains free and is able to oust the dictator attacking it. I commend you for reverting the terms of use change. I also believe that this sort of remaining political statement in a project sets a poor precedent, and diminishes the work. Free software is meant to be open to all. Throwing ideolog…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Although one thing the author does owe the community is clarity in the license. The PR in question changed the named of the license from "Apache 2.0" to "Modified Apache." If you change the terms of a well known license, like Apache or MIT or whatever, for whatever reason, you should not mislead others into thinking it is an unmodified licensed.
I have updated the wording in README - https://github.com/terraform-aws-modules/terraform-aws-eks#a... . The project was and will be under the same Apache 2 license.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't really think it is. I believe free software is natural. Saying free software is political is like saying freedom is political. How is being against oppression political? Wouldn't that just be considered natural, and the people saying it is a political stance be the ones oppressing trying to make it political?
Define freedom, and define oppression. OK, now get everyone to agree. Oops, you've just entered politics
I’m ethically torn here. On one hand, I ask myself what I would have done if I worked at IBM in the 1930s[0] On the other hand, as an LGBT person, I firmly believe that maximal freedom of speech protects vulnerable people from erasure. What this means for free software is a tough question. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IBM_and_World_War_II
I don't think there is a tradeoff. Not all actions constitute speech. Supporters of Russian actions should be able to spout off their horrible thoughts, but that doesn't mean companies the need to sell their goods or services to Russia. The two categories of acts aren't the same.