Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

The Terraform Registry Terms of Service have been updated

github.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 136 posts

Re: The Terraform Registry Terms of Service have been updated

#41

Post by ncallaway »

rwmj wrote: post #22

What's the legal theory that allows HashiCorp to control the use of data after downloading it? Is it like if I offered MP4 files on my website that can be downloaded by anyone but added the condition you must view them in VLC only? (which I'm fairly sure would be unenforcible even if the MP4 files were proprietary content)

I think the freedom to contract is the main legal theory.

That, as long as there’s a proper contract that doesn’t contain unconscionable or otherwise illegal terms, then adults can enter into contracts with the consent of all parties, and the parties get to decide the terms of the agreement.

Re: The Terraform Registry Terms of Service have been updated

#44

Post by freeopinion »

jeremyjh wrote: post #28
jacquesm wrote: post #4

Companies want the benefits of open source (massive community contributions, lower development costs, better security, community exposure, marketshare) but don't like the downsides (from their perspective: forks, lack of control, freeloaders etc). TOS changes like this are fine, it's their garden, but ultimately all they'll do is put even more power behind forks and alternatives. Because the people that were motivate…

I think this damages all commercial OSS projects. Because after Docker and Terraform, any effort to bring in some OSS project as a dependency will be met with "Sure, it's open source now, but what about when...".

I think it shows the huge benefit of OSS. If TF had been closed from the start, users would have no recourse at all. Instead, there is a viable path forward.

Re: The Terraform Registry Terms of Service have been updated

#45

Post by throwaway103xx »

paulgb wrote: post #16
martypitt wrote: post #2

Not the OP, but I suspect HN has trimmed the anchor link. > https://github.com/opentffoundation/roadmap/issues/24#issuec... That's the comment that made the issue clear -- specifically TOS were amended for https://registry.terraform.io to state: > You may download providers, modules, policy libraries and/or other Services or Content from this website __solely for use with, or in support of, HashiCorp Terraform.__ ie.…

> But, I guess if OpenTF is taking a position of "Use us instead of Terraform", then they shouldn't expect to get the usage of Hashicorps infra. It’s totally something they can do, but it seems short-sighted. They had to know that this wouldn’t actually stop the momentum around OpenTF, but just result in HashiCorp giving up the control they have over the canonical namespace. As precedent, Docker allows Kubernetes and…

If you look at it from a proprietary software company (which is what Hashicorp is now), it's totally expected and understandable. Why should they spend money supporting extra load on their infrastructure from people that are not directly paying for that? It makes perfect sense.

Is it short-sighed? If you think they will go down in market share from now on, yes. But Hashicorp probably thinks it won't or it wouldn't have made the change in the first place. For them, it's all the way up from here.

Re: The Terraform Registry Terms of Service have been updated

#46

Post by throwaway103xx »

scarface_74 wrote: post #36
armchairhacker wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

IMO it shouldn't be much different than "sure, it's open source now, but what if it stops being maintained?" Because open-source code never stops being open-source, it just stops getting open-source updates. Closed-source in some situations can prevent you from using existing software; you also have other closed-source issues like bugs being unfixable. Would you rather use a service that worst-case, you have to patch…

> Would you rather use a service that worst-case, you have to patch and maintain yourselves? Having to patch and maintain a complex piece of open source code yourself for most smaller non tech companies for all practical purposes means that it might as well be abandoned closed source code.

Exactly. The end result is the same.

Folks are wise to question if they should use OSS that has a CLA assigning copyright because that means they should have zero expectations about the license not changing.

Re: The Terraform Registry Terms of Service have been updated

#47

Post by prmoustache »

yuppie_scum wrote: post #19
cube2222 wrote: post #15

Hey! Just wanted to say that this doesn't impact OpenTF too much. It's an extra step we need to take before a stable release, but long-term it'll make us more decoupled, which is great. As someone else commented, all providers and modules other than Hashicorp's are hosted on GitHub and the registry is just a "redirector". We'll do something similar, other than some special handling for Hashicorp's providers. Also, I…

I sure hope that opentf doesn’t just cause a fragmentation in the ecosystem that ruins the user experience, especially for the many people who are happily using unpaid TF and self hosted state stores.

If there is fragmentation, that will be caused by Hashicorp, not opentf.

Re: The Terraform Registry Terms of Service have been updated

#48

Post by pizzafeelsright »

bombolo wrote: post #42
Octabrain wrote: post #5

I had Hashicorp in my mind as a cool and respectful company. These recent events have made to reconsider and throw them into the same bag as Oracle. I find this pretty sad.

You had never used vault uh?

Would you provide some details on this?

Re: The Terraform Registry Terms of Service have been updated

#49

Post by yjftsjthsd-h »

throwaway103xx wrote: post #45
paulgb wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> But, I guess if OpenTF is taking a position of "Use us instead of Terraform", then they shouldn't expect to get the usage of Hashicorps infra. It’s totally something they can do, but it seems short-sighted. They had to know that this wouldn’t actually stop the momentum around OpenTF, but just result in HashiCorp giving up the control they have over the canonical namespace. As precedent, Docker allows Kubernetes and…

If you look at it from a proprietary software company (which is what Hashicorp is now), it's totally expected and understandable. Why should they spend money supporting extra load on their infrastructure from people that are not directly paying for that? It makes perfect sense. Is it short-sighed? If you think they will go down in market share from now on, yes. But Hashicorp probably thinks it won't or it wouldn't ha…

> Why should they spend money supporting extra load on their infrastructure from people that are not directly paying for that?

There same logic applies to users; at this point, I have to assume that the only reason that Hashicorp is providing anything to people who aren't actively giving them money is to try and get money from them later. This is also one of the reasons I'm abandoning them ASAP; now that the money squeeze has started, it's not like they're going to stop.

Re: The Terraform Registry Terms of Service have been updated

#50

Post by TheCleric »

scarface_74 wrote: post #36
armchairhacker wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

IMO it shouldn't be much different than "sure, it's open source now, but what if it stops being maintained?" Because open-source code never stops being open-source, it just stops getting open-source updates. Closed-source in some situations can prevent you from using existing software; you also have other closed-source issues like bugs being unfixable. Would you rather use a service that worst-case, you have to patch…

> Would you rather use a service that worst-case, you have to patch and maintain yourselves? Having to patch and maintain a complex piece of open source code yourself for most smaller non tech companies for all practical purposes means that it might as well be abandoned closed source code.

Even for tech companies, the problem becomes that's yet one more thing to maintain. I'm perfectly capable of maintaining a fork if I need to, but that doesn't mean I have the time and energy to do so.
Post reply on HN