31–40 of 760 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Out of curiosity what is your definition of a freeloader? Is someone who’s been coding but hasn’t made a single OSS commit a freeloader ?
I would imagine that its someone who builds a profitable offering on the back of OSS and doesn't give back anything.
> As a result, we believe commercial open source models need to evolve for the ecosystem to continue providing open, freely available software. To imply that a non-open-source license like the BUSL is part of such an evolution of "open source" models (commercial or otherwise) betrays either severe confusion or a deliberate attempt to mislead. Like, has anyone of any significance used a Hashicorp product to meaningful…
I haven't looked to see what licenses are involved, but Pulumi makes liberal use of Terraform providers[1]. And I would definitely consider them to be a Hashicorp competitor. [1]: https://www.pulumi.com/docs/concepts/vs/terraform/#:~:text=U... . > Pulumi is able to adapt any Terraform Provider for use with Pulumi, enabling management of any infrastructure supported by the Terraform Providers ecosystem using Pulumi pr…
Pulumi made Hashicorp build Terraform CDK. Which is a great result.
And the only reason Hashicorp was able to build CDK quickly is because they built it on top of Amazon's open source Amazon CDK. Another competitor.
> As a result, we believe commercial open source models need to evolve for the ecosystem to continue providing open, freely available software. To imply that a non-open-source license like the BUSL is part of such an evolution of "open source" models (commercial or otherwise) betrays either severe confusion or a deliberate attempt to mislead. Like, has anyone of any significance used a Hashicorp product to meaningful…
> BSL provides a Change Date usually between one to four years in which the BSL license converts to a Change License that is open source, which can be GNU General Public License (GPL), GNU Affero General Public License (AGPL), Apache, etc.
So to me the most important question is what is the change license and how long does it take? If it's 1 year then it goes MPS 2.0: okay that's fine. But if it's much longer and more restrictive than it's a real about face and means the opensource version is really not workable as it's too far behind the head.
--- EDIT:
> 4 years, MPL 2.0
https://www.hashicorp.com/license-faq#What's-the-difference-...
4 years is basically "of historical interest" only especially when security is involved.
Inevitable end for every open source company since the free money ended. What bothers me is that wording is vague enough. > HashiCorp considers a competitive offering to be a product or service provided to users or customers outside of your organization that has significant overlap with the capabilities of HashiCorp’s commercial products or services. So, consider there is no cost estimate service and you built a thin…
"Then after 2 years Terraform Cloud catches up" Really good point, company scopes change.
- Software made by startups that are precious to HN. In this case, building a business on top of them is "freeloading" and it's deeply immoral. Examples: Elastic, HashiCorp, Mongo
- "Public good software", there's nothing wrong with profiting from it, in fact, it's encouraged. Examples: Linux, Postgres, Nginx, Apache
> As a result, we believe commercial open source models need to evolve for the ecosystem to continue providing open, freely available software. To imply that a non-open-source license like the BUSL is part of such an evolution of "open source" models (commercial or otherwise) betrays either severe confusion or a deliberate attempt to mislead. Like, has anyone of any significance used a Hashicorp product to meaningful…
> Like, has anyone of any significance used a Hashicorp product to meaningfully compete with Hashicorp? Just because nobody has tried yet doesn’t mean that it won’t ever happen. Companies are doing this precisely because companies like Amazon abuse FOSS licenses to stand up their own hosted versions of open source projects.
That nobody has tried suggests paranoia at best.
> Companies are doing this precisely because companies like Amazon abuse FOSS licenses to stand up their own hosted versions of open source projects.
The AGPL exists and already fully addresses that.
Nothing wrong with this imo. I actually hope more open source projects start with a business source license if their ultimate goal is to become a SaaS platform. I think we've seen time and time again large enterprises abusing the spirit of open source for their own monetary gain, contributing nothing back, and just acting in bad faith.
Abusing the spirit of open source, what? If somebody doesn't want any competitors they should have read the licenses and understood them, and not simply used open source as a buzzword for marketing purposes.
License technicalities don't matter. If people use permissive licenses as an excuse to justify an ecosystem that is parasitic any such system will die out, it cannot sustain itself.