401–410 of 760 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If so, you can check out Infisical ( https://github.com/Infisical/infisical ) as an open source alternative to Vault. The absolute majority of our codebase is licensed under MIT and we have no intentions to change that. Disclaimer: I'm one of the founders.
> we have no intentions to change that I suspect that Hashicorp would have said the same thing a couple years ago.
> 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…
Why, quite clearly: > Organizations providing competitive offerings to HashiCorp will no longer be permitted to use the community edition products free of charge under our BSL license. Commercial licensing terms are available and can enable use cases beyond the BSL limitations. Looks to me very similar to (A)GPL + commercial dual licensing, for instance.
Funny how @mitchellh has decided not to join the conversation. Pretty sure he had the ultimate input on this decision, and historically he's engaged with HN directly. Hmm. Overall it seems like a loser move. Look what happened to Elasticsearch - to me and most others, ES no longer exists. I've happily moved on to OpenSearch and not looked back at poor kimchi. Due to their own actions, Elasticsearch is no longer relev…
That's pretty disappointing. I personally haven't used much beyond vault (I've used but not enjoyed or built anything on terraform), but this is pretty diametrically opposed to what I appreciated most about hashicorp products. Heck, I've even contributed a chunk of the code I use the most from vault (Cert management) and now I'm going to have to reevaluate whether I can attempt to use that service for customers going…
> That's pretty disappointing. From the article: “End users can continue to copy, modify, and redistribute the code for all non-commercial and commercial use, except where providing a competitive offering to HashiCorp.” Literally nothing has changed, this isn’t disappointing, it’s smart, they’re protecting themselves against cloud providers that have repeatedly abused the goodwill of the open source community.
As for "abusing the goodwill of the open source community", that's kind of the point of FOSS. Free riding is not stealing. That's proprietary world logic, and everyone saying we need to stop people from free riding FOSS is calling for the enclosure of the commons.
Let me be perfectly clear: there is no license condition you can put on software that will let everyone use it as if it were in the commons but prevent Amazon Web Services from hosting it.
> 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…
Think about all the reduction in sales cost their open source model resulted in. Because they were open source, they had a foot in the door and in-built evangelism.
Once that stopped being an advantage and they had utilized all the community goodwill by being open source, they make this change.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That licence tends to have the dual effect of dissuading otherwise valid users from using it, because a lot of devs and corps see “something something GPL” and just shut down.
That's where dual-licensing comes in like Artifex' AGPL + commercial licensing. But yes, most large Tech companies have a blanket ban on AGPL.
sounds like it's doing its intended job well then?
Funny how @mitchellh has decided not to join the conversation. Pretty sure he had the ultimate input on this decision, and historically he's engaged with HN directly. Hmm. Overall it seems like a loser move. Look what happened to Elasticsearch - to me and most others, ES no longer exists. I've happily moved on to OpenSearch and not looked back at poor kimchi. Due to their own actions, Elasticsearch is no longer relev…
Hasn't mitchellh stepped down from a leadership role? Why would he have "the ultimate input on this decision"?
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.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
3 is a confusing one but understandable. You should be using the OIDC login method most of the time for MFA, and not their built-in MFA. I’m unsure if the equivalent software is worth the price when compared to Vault and not sure I can seriously suggest anything else even if I hate this new license.
You can use a mix of secrets manager and certificate manager products in AWS and accomplish essentially the same things Vault promises for much cheaper (and easier to manage). I’m underselling of course the vast capabilities of vault. but most companies don’t need those advanced features, and they don’t really sell them, they sell and lock you into features that once you implement are going to become an extraodinary…