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

61–70 of 136 posts

Re: The Terraform Registry Terms of Service have been updated

#61

Post by cube2222 »

miki123211 wrote: post #59
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…

Out of curiosity, why isn't OpenTF's development, done, well, in the open? What's the rationale for keeping it closed for now? I'm not critiquing, not a Terraform user so don't have any stake in this discussion, just curious.

Mostly trademark issues, really.

Re: The Terraform Registry Terms of Service have been updated

#62

Post by jacquesm »

jeremyjh wrote: post #58
prmoustache wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

On the contrary, it shows how opensource is a reliable long term choice through the possibility of forking.

It doesn't matter if you agree, it only matters if there are some decision makers that agree, and I know for a fact that there are. So the damage has already happened.

Likewise. This is precisely how it happens, and no amount of wishful thinking about how companies are going to insource the maintainance of some major FOSS package is going to change that. It simply will not happen that way, companies want to focus on their business and not on the vast amount of tooling that underpins basic functionality, they'll just use another supplier.

Re: The Terraform Registry Terms of Service have been updated

#63

Post by yjftsjthsd-h »

jeremyjh wrote: post #56
yjftsjthsd-h wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's a cautionary tale about CLAs, not FOSS.

Are there commercial FOSS projects that don't have CLAs?

I responded to

> 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...".

If you'd like to constrain that to commercial OSS projects it would be more compelling.

Re: The Terraform Registry Terms of Service have been updated

#65

Post by jacquesm »

freeopinion wrote: post #44
jeremyjh wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

That viability hinges on people actually doing it and the evidence that this is happening at scale just doesn't exist. There are some forks of major packages out there that have been extended but that's because the company had entirely different ideas about the direction in which to take a package. But for the vast majority of FOSS out there the current maintainers are the ones that are capable of doing so and the entities using the package are not able, do not have the funds or the time or people to do so themselves (and more likely a combination of those).

Re: The Terraform Registry Terms of Service have been updated

#66

Post by jacquesm »

yjftsjthsd-h wrote: post #63
jeremyjh wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Are there commercial FOSS projects that don't have CLAs?

I responded to > 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...". If you'd like to constrain that to commercial OSS projects it would be more compelling.

The alternative to a commercial OSS project is a commercial project without the OSS component. If the quality is perceived to be similar and the OSS license is no longer a factor then it might as well be closed source.

Re: The Terraform Registry Terms of Service have been updated

#67

Post by a_vanderbilt »

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…

This is the same series of events that we saw (and continue to see) play out after IBM attempted to shut off access to Redhat by competitors. They had control of every user's attention, and they exerted huge control over the direction of development. They lost control when they gutted CentOS, and now their competitors are banding together to make their own offerings. This might end up fragmenting their ecosystem in the long run.

I see a similar result of HashiCorp's attempts. OpenTF will make a suitable replacement, and adoption may sway to their fork rather than HashiCorp's. As they continue to meddle, the community (which wants free software) will continue to push back.

Re: The Terraform Registry Terms of Service have been updated

#68

Post by justin_oaks »

newsclues wrote: post #13

Corporations double down on stupid.

Which is a shame. If they backed down then only a little goodwill would be lost rather than the whole thing.

So now they are probably going to lose goodwill AND market share.

I'm hoping that OpenTF becomes the winning fork, just like Jenkins won over Hudson.

Post reply on HN