OpenTofu Response to HashiCorp's Cease and Desist Letter • Hacker News Board

Re: OpenTofu Response to HashiCorp's Cease and Desist Letter

#31

Post by chucky_z » Fri, Apr 12, 2024, 4:36 PM UTC

JohnMakin wrote: post #4

> “for_each” implementation for “import” blocks, Well, I'm officially on board with this project. We've been told this is impossible for years. Seems like this is pretty air tight for OpenTofu, but cease and desist letters are usually hoping to intimidate you into action anyway. edit: looks like I may have confused import blocks with provider blocks... please give me for_each support for provider blocks! please!

You can do this really easily today with cdktf, I'd imagine there's some interop with opentofu there that's possible?

Re: OpenTofu Response to HashiCorp's Cease and Desist Letter

#32

Post by cholantesh » Fri, Apr 12, 2024, 11:25 PM UTC

fishnchips wrote: post #22

hermanradtke wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Until there is an update to the original article [0], I don't find this apology particular meaningful. 0: https://www.infoworld.com/article/3714980/opentofu-may-be-sh...

There is an update already: "Update: Since this article was published, HashiCorp sent OpenTofu a cease-and-desist letter on April 3, 2024, expressing in greater detail the concerns raised in this post. On April 11, 2024, the OpenTofu maintainers responded with a detailed analysis of the claims made about the removed block. Based on these documents, it appears that the OpenTofu community did not misappropriate HashiCo…

There wasn't at the time the concern was raised, and the author was literally refusing to do so.

Re: OpenTofu Response to HashiCorp's Cease and Desist Letter

#33

Post by learningstud » Sun, Apr 14, 2024, 1:01 AM UTC

fishnchips wrote: post #29

cjoelbrowning wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

OpenTofu PR’d a feature in response to a request to do what Terraform had done under a different license. Hashicorp would be foolish not to look into it.

And here's where we agree. They totally should have had people look into it. Competent people, engineers. Would've saved them the current embarrassment.

The engineers most likely have looked into it. Most likely, it's the legal department and higher ups that decided to push through.