Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

HashiCorp adopts Business Source License

hashicorp.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

541–550 of 760 posts

Re: HashiCorp adopts Business Source License

#541

Post by aatd86 »

aatd86 wrote: post #357
andrewstuart2 wrote: post #310

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Seems like you missed the part where I literally typed "giving back." Or that I literally contributed part of the hashicorp codebase, specifically vault. And it's been hard continuing to do that at $DAYJOB consistently, so I've hacked on a side project in my spare time (also open sourcing plenty of useful tools during that hacking) as a means to the end of eventually finding ways to keep giving back directly and teac…

Imagine that someone see your open-source code and creates a competitor product by assimilating it... Imagine that this entity is much bigger than you even... I don't think you'd be happy, would you? I know I wouldn't be... :-)

People downvote but from a strategic point of view it makes no sense at all.

It's all good because usually open-source is an investment for bigger companies that they can recoup somewhere else.

But for small-players, it makes absolutely no sense to create a business and also make it easy for competitors to compete or even for competitors to appear.

But people probably realize that otherwise there wouldn't be so many debates.

Who funds open-source? (not talking about source-available but the most permissive Open-Source licenses)

Re: HashiCorp adopts Business Source License

#542

Post by sebastianz »

sebastianz wrote: post #532
pcthrowaway wrote: post #489

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Why do you think "open core", which most of those are, is somehow better than BSL? Firstly, I don't have a problem with BSL. I do think in general it's a bit of a slap in the face to build a business on the backs of volunteer contributors, and then close-source all your codebases which are comprised of their work. Sure, when people contributed, they signed a CLA which gives Hashicorp the right to relicense the work…

> I'd give Uniswap pretty good odds of outliving the majority of YC startups. The majority of YC startups are definitely not sustainable. Probably even most of the successful ones are not sustainable, they make empty sustainability promises hoping to get bought by and end up on "our amazing journey" lists.

Sorry for veering off-topic there. I agree that re-licensing and BSL/AGPL are muddy-territory and I'm also not sure how to feel about them.

But a surviving project moving to BSL is still clearly better then the company going under and the project ending in limbo.

Even with BSL you can still access the code, audit it, learn from it, fork it to keep your own patches on top and keep up with upstream, etc. Huge value compared to closed source.

Re: HashiCorp adopts Business Source License

#543

Post by CrimsonRain »

falcolas wrote: post #158
pessimizer wrote: post #112

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, if words have meaning, "closed source" does not provide source. Closed source does not mean "not open source."

Well then, according to the meaning you are assigning these words, Windows must be open source. Which, of course, is obviously false. Which means the words have different meaning than what you ascribe to them. Source available means you can view the source code, by abiding to the terms the owner of the code sets. Closed source means you can’t change or redistribute that source, regardless of whether you are allowed t…

So where can I view windows 11 source code? Got a link?

Re: HashiCorp adopts Business Source License

#544

Post by bawolff »

jamestanderson wrote: post #28

All that I get from this is that HashiCorp is no longer an open source company. > However, there are other vendors who take advantage of pure OSS models, and the community work on OSS projects, for their own commercial goals, without providing material contributions back. We don’t believe this is in the spirit of open source. This is 100% in the spirit of open source. If this is a problem for them, why not adopt an o…

> This is 100% in the spirit of open source

Not just in the spirit but a fundamental tenant.

Re: HashiCorp adopts Business Source License

#546

Post by bawolff »

_msw_ wrote: post #496
deno wrote: post #468

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Only if you accept contributions without a license grant CLA.

And this is why I think people who love Software Freedom should think twice about signing a CLA for their copyleft licensed contributions. [1] inbound=outbound license terms is a good norm for FOSS. Why should a software vendor play by different rules than everyone else when it comes to things like copyleft compliance? [1] https://meshedinsights.com/2021/06/14/legally-ignoring-the-l...

From a pragmatic perspective, it is much easier to enforce an open source license with a lawsuit if you own 100% of it.

Re: HashiCorp adopts Business Source License

#547

Post by davidgerard »

CrimsonRain wrote: post #537
JoshTriplett wrote: post #320

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'd rather have proprietary than "almost open source". Both aren't useful, but only one attempts to damage the common understanding of what "Open Source" means.

You do realize that it is people like you who are turning FOSS in to OSS, then claiming BSL (and non-OSI Stuff) are not OSS and blaming others for damaging understanding?

they literally aren't. These are jargon terms with precise meanings.

Re: HashiCorp adopts Business Source License

#548

Post by bawolff »

Macha wrote: post #198
pydry wrote: post #183

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think these projects should just dual license as AGPL and BPL/EPL. 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.

I'm way more fine with AGPL (without CLA). That's perfectly within the spirit of open source, as it doesn't privilege one group of users over another. BPL, EPL, SSPL are all "not open source", and AGPL+CLA is "we're setting up for a bait and switch with not open source versions".

> AGPL+CLA is "we're setting up for a bait and switch with not open source versions".

Which is fine imo as long as the moment they pull the bait/switch they stop calling it open source (and others can fork at that point)

Re: HashiCorp adopts Business Source License

#549

Post by hashtag-til »

kodablah wrote: post #123
hashtag-til wrote: post #99

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I find it brave we had this generation of companies creating open-source business models. It’s a shame it didn’t work out for them due to bad actors. The trend I see is for the next generation of good open-source great ideas to be much more protective around their intellectual property. Such a loss, again, due to bad actors.

I don't think the loss is due to bad actors. These actors aren't bad, they're rational. I think the loss is due to giving away things unconditionally without thinking about what that means. Many companies aren't reneging on open source. The ones that are reneging can't compete on what they are selling, so they have to compete on what they're not selling.

Bad actors want to take advantage no matter what. It is the same case as Red Hat recent moves not to provide easy-to-rebrand linux distribution sources. Before they went the extra mile to foster collaboration, but were forced to be less friendly because of freeloaders.

Similar point here. Hashicorp have very good products that are open source as a way to foster collaboration. Freeloaders rebrand it and re-sell with no added value, so Hashicorp are forced to close it (or more like put a timer) to protect their investment.

As I said, I'm a big fan of open-source, and have been working on it for a long time, but am growing more and more frustrated with the current state of things, so much so, that it makes a lot of sense to me that companies that start with great collaboration spirit are forced to tighten their sources due to bad actors in the system.

Re: HashiCorp adopts Business Source License

#550

Post by hashtag-til »

deadbunny wrote: post #271
hashtag-til wrote: post #99

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I find it brave we had this generation of companies creating open-source business models. It’s a shame it didn’t work out for them due to bad actors. The trend I see is for the next generation of good open-source great ideas to be much more protective around their intellectual property. Such a loss, again, due to bad actors.

I consider building a moat on open source contributions (that have to assign their copyright) then closing off to be something a "bad actor" would do.

Not at all. It's a defense mechanism that many are forced to do in order to protect from freeloaders.
Post reply on HN