IMO Terraform providers should've never been free. It should've been open-core, whether you are running on prem or on the cloud. There are multi-billion dollars companies using Terraform and pay exactly 0$ (yes, some that are generous are paying for support, great but you don't build a business on charity). Maintaining 3000 APIs for GCP, AWS, and Azure is costing at the very list $20M/year - trying to drive everyone to the cloud offering instead of charging for whatever people already use is the wrong way around imo. You can charge less but charging nothing doesn't gonna work. Heck, even a restaurant is charging a bit less for food and then charges more on beverage but it never gives the food for free.
HashiCorp adopts Business Source License
551–560 of 760 posts
Re: HashiCorp adopts Business Source License
#552It is surprising to see so many people here being shocked that a publicly traded company operates its projects for profit rather than altruism.
Re: HashiCorp adopts Business Source License
#553It is surprising to see so many people here being shocked that a publicly traded company operates its projects for profit rather than altruism.
It's the hypocrisy of pretending to be open source (which is an ideology) and while shipping nonfree software.
Microsoft does it too but they don't pretend to care about software freedoms.
Re: HashiCorp adopts Business Source License
#554Earlier quoted context omitted.
Because they want it to be developed collaboratively, in the public eye, and for the good of all contributors. In other words, free as in freedom, but not free as in beer.
> In other words, free as in freedom, but not free as in beer. That's the Free Software slogan, not open source. The only relationship between the two is that open source can easily be relicensed into Free Software (or proprietary, or whatever.) There's nothing in open source about friendliness or collaborative development. I'm not forced to take your advice or contributions just because I'm open source, so how could…
> I'm not forced to take your advice or contributions just because I'm open source
Opinions like that are the reason why more and more companies are walking away from the great attempt of building stuff collaboratively.
Re: HashiCorp adopts Business Source License
#555Earlier quoted context omitted.
The OSI Open Source Definition and the FSF Free Software Definition are for most practical purposes identical (and most licenses meet both or neither); historically, the Open Source and Free Software communities have somewhat different reasons for preferring the same thing, but the things are the same.
Not so: open source licenses tend not to have any clauses requiring reciprocation, free software licenses do. Think MIT or BSD vs GPL.
That distinction is what makes copyleft licenses. Free software is just as overarching as open source, see e.g. the FSF's list of free software licenses: https://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html
Re: HashiCorp adopts Business Source License
#556Well, that simplifies a lot the choice between Nomad and Kubernetes.
Nomad is a dead product. I think Terraform has hope though
Re: HashiCorp adopts Business Source License
#557At 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.
There are many projects that are managed by foundations, like the Apache Foundation, FSF, Linux Foundation, etc. Those projects aren't backed by any one corporate entity. Aside from that, there's still value in contributing to a product you're consuming at your day job: not having to maintain forks. If you can get your feature into the upstream project, less work for you in the long run, it's a win win. Should you co…
That is a great idea. Do you know any alternatives to Vault that is owned by one of these organizations?
Re: HashiCorp adopts Business Source License
#558AFAIK the official Crossplane providers for AWS, GCP & Azure are built on the respective Hashicorp owned Terraform providers; so I'm not sure how this is going to impact them?
Do they not autogenerate the code for their providers? A recall a big thing being made of that a while back.
Re: HashiCorp adopts Business Source License
#559It is surprising to see so many people here being shocked that a publicly traded company operates its projects for profit rather than altruism.
It's the hypocrisy of pretending to be open source (which is an ideology) and while shipping nonfree software. Microsoft does it too but they don't pretend to care about software freedoms.
Why would you believe a company's supposed ideology in the first place?
Re: HashiCorp adopts Business Source License
#560It’s a pity that it has become a business model.
1. Build a nice product, scream open source everywhere. 2. Get users to buy in on all the niceties, perhaps even nice contributions in terms of integrations and such(that people probably would not have cared for if it was some niche closed source product with much fewer users) 3. Once they are established enough, and people have gotten used to the learning curve, change the license and try to lock in as many users as they can and ignore the loud few who scream foul.
Some other product comes out to fill the void and they do the same as above..