181–190 of 760 posts
Looks like it stays k8s + pulumi + ansible for me.
I do think they’ll be able to benefit from this though — serious businesses that derive value from their offerings should be comfortable paying more/something for the value they’re receiving.
At this point if you are actively spending time and effort contributing to any open source project while not being affiliated with (and getting paid by) the company that manages it, know that you are being taken for a ride. Your contributions are eventually going to be moved under a non-open license so the company in question can secure their revenue stream and you can do nothing about it.
I think what you say is factually correct, but maybe misrepresents the situation a bit.
The license automatically converts to full open-source after 4 years. Maybe this isn't ideal, but it isn't "big company takes your code and locks it away forever" either.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Ideology is great until people need to eat. That’s what revenue is for. High level, times have changed. Source should be (my two cents, ymmv) about a mutually beneficial partnership between builders and users, not “give it all away for free or you’re not legit.” Users get to understand and extend what they’re running (via source), while the project steward/maintainer/owner can continue to do so. It is a balance to be…
You're free to decide open source isn't working for you. (Well, assuming you're not using any open source software that has decided on viral licenses because that's the payment _they_ expect) You're not free to decide your source available model is open source and reap the marketing benefits of open source without the costs.
That way all the "it's not really technically open source" complainers couldn't day that its not technically open source.
It wouldnt substantively change anything of course, but that's somewhat the point. BPL/EPL/SSPL was always fully within the spirit of open source, it just pissed off the same large corporations who also can't stand the AGPL.
Luckily I've just remembered I don't need to maintain or contribute to terraform providers anymore.
Write them for Pulumi!
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Reviewing those PRs require engineer time from a HashiCorp employee - how many resources should be diverted to it?
> Reviewing those PRs require engineer time from a HashiCorp employee No it doesn't. There's nothing stopping them delegating that task to community members apart from the desire to retain corporate control.
> Why is HashiCorp making this change? > > We strongly believe in the value of openly sharing source code and enabling practitioners to solve their problems, building communities, and creating transparency. HashiCorp provides feature-rich products to the community for free, and that development is made possible by our commercial customers who partner with us. By shifting to this license, HashiCorp can better manage c…
because there's a contention between the people developing the software and the startup community. it's obvious that for a company (money-making entity), that they're going to want to have a monopoly in providing the software aaS. That's the monetization strategy on otherwise free software. I don't think this is surprising. We saw this years ago with AWS and MongoDB. Yes, a startup can offer Vault cheaper since they…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Open source licenses are the legal system. They're licenses. Changing your license isn't "switching to the legal system."
I must not be making myself clear. Projects are free to choose permissive licenses like BSD. Companies are then free to use the code however they like and not contribute back in any way. Projects are then free to be annoyed by this because they hoped that companies would contribute time and/or resouces out their own good will. Finally, projects are free to move to "business source" licenses because good will didn't w…
Projects choosing a permissive license like BSD is utilizing the legal system. BSD is a contract, a copyright license. It imposes restrictions/limitations/obligations, which can/would be enforced by a court.
> Why is HashiCorp making this change? > > We strongly believe in the value of openly sharing source code and enabling practitioners to solve their problems, building communities, and creating transparency. HashiCorp provides feature-rich products to the community for free, and that development is made possible by our commercial customers who partner with us. By shifting to this license, HashiCorp can better manage c…
because there's a contention between the people developing the software and the startup community. it's obvious that for a company (money-making entity), that they're going to want to have a monopoly in providing the software aaS. That's the monetization strategy on otherwise free software. I don't think this is surprising. We saw this years ago with AWS and MongoDB. Yes, a startup can offer Vault cheaper since they…
At the very least anyone using open source to run SaaS for profit should be giving something back to the authors of the software. That’s the least they can do given the user hostility of the model as typically implemented.
Open source is stuck in the 90s and has failed to respond to the rise of SaaS or “the new closed.” The big mechanism of restricting freedom now is closed execution, ownership of the network effect, and closed data not closed source. Google could open every bit of their source and nothing would be gained freedom-wise.
At this point if you are actively spending time and effort contributing to any open source project while not being affiliated with (and getting paid by) the company that manages it, know that you are being taken for a ride. Your contributions are eventually going to be moved under a non-open license so the company in question can secure their revenue stream and you can do nothing about it.
At this point if you are actively spending time and effort contributing to any open source project while not being affiliated with (and getting paid by) the company that manages it, know that you are being taken for a ride. Your contributions are eventually going to be moved under a non-open license so the company in question can secure their revenue stream and you can do nothing about it.
> Your contributions are eventually going to be moved under a non-open license so the company in question can secure their revenue stream and you can do nothing about it. I think what you say is factually correct, but maybe misrepresents the situation a bit. The license automatically converts to full open-source after 4 years. Maybe this isn't ideal, but it isn't "big company takes your code and locks it away forever…