31–40 of 191 posts
"Oracle’s move seems like a straightforward decision to ensure it is using the most permissive underlying IaC tool without having to worry about downstream license complications, no more and no less." Hm, with that logic they could dump MySQL in favor of MariaDB as well
Oracle owns MySQL but not Terraform
We're seeing an uptick in open source projects getting relicenced to non-open licenses. Some projects are successfully forked and the userbase shifts, other times not. One theory of mine is that we can measure the risk that a project will be relicensed by looking at things like diversity of contributors, trademark ownership, contributor agreements, and license terms. Low risk projects include the Linux kernel (GPL, D…
I think "contributor agreements" are the biggest red flag. Though I like them for potentially upgrading a license (say from GPLv2 to v3), not that this always is a good thing.
Following IBM's acquisition of Hashicorp the moves seems unsurprising, they wouldn't want to be beholden to a competitor. We'll inevitably see others large companies follow suite - it was one thing when hashicorp was independent tech company but it's very different when it's owned by a direct competitor.
"Oracle’s move seems like a straightforward decision to ensure it is using the most permissive underlying IaC tool without having to worry about downstream license complications, no more and no less." Hm, with that logic they could dump MySQL in favor of MariaDB as well
Especially ironic, given that Oracle is one of the nastiest and most aggressive companies at enforcing license terms.
We're seeing an uptick in open source projects getting relicenced to non-open licenses. Some projects are successfully forked and the userbase shifts, other times not. One theory of mine is that we can measure the risk that a project will be relicensed by looking at things like diversity of contributors, trademark ownership, contributor agreements, and license terms. Low risk projects include the Linux kernel (GPL, D…
"Oracle’s move seems like a straightforward decision to ensure it is using the most permissive underlying IaC tool without having to worry about downstream license complications, no more and no less." Hm, with that logic they could dump MySQL in favor of MariaDB as well
Especially ironic, given that Oracle is one of the nastiest and most aggressive companies at enforcing license terms.
We're seeing an uptick in open source projects getting relicenced to non-open licenses. Some projects are successfully forked and the userbase shifts, other times not. One theory of mine is that we can measure the risk that a project will be relicensed by looking at things like diversity of contributors, trademark ownership, contributor agreements, and license terms. Low risk projects include the Linux kernel (GPL, D…
To me, the obvious questions are who owns the IP, and what are their incentives to maintain the current licensing.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I was wondering, once IBM got Hashicorp, if they would reverse the license change for Terraform. Not been that long since the announcement, so still hoping they will.
Has there ever been notable instances of company regretting and reversing license change of a major project?
Following IBM's acquisition of Hashicorp the moves seems unsurprising, they wouldn't want to be beholden to a competitor. We'll inevitably see others large companies follow suite - it was one thing when hashicorp was independent tech company but it's very different when it's owned by a direct competitor.
I wish there was a type safe, algebraic data type using Terraform alternative.
https://github.com/VirtuslabRnD/pulumi-kotlin
For Pulumi. When I see the pulumi-kotlin example code I much prefer it over my Terraform scripts. (We picked TF before Pulumi was an option, and waaaaay before it had reasonably typesafe lang support)