561–570 of 760 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yes it is open to individual comercial use (companies much larger then sole proprieterships may only have one person doing inferstructure). They also have a version for nonprofits https://www.pulumi.com/pricing/open-source-free-tier/
Do you have a source for that (or are you affiliated)?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
No I’m saying most tech companies went public without being profitable and that had more to do with the declining stock price.
It's not weird at all to go public before profitability, that was even the standard in tech for the longest time. The IPO was a _fundraising_ event, not a dump-the-company-on-the-public-and-move-on event.
The vast majority of tech companies that IPOd since Facebook have been a disaster of an investment.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
[Joe, Pulumi Founder here.] Said well (and thank you for being a customer and valuable member of our community!) The analogy I draw sometimes is that our open source infrastructure as code SDK ("Pulumi") is like Git, and our commercial offering ("Pulumi Cloud") is like GitHub. Like GitHub, the Pulumi Cloud offers valuable features that go beyond the open source project for teams looking to manage lots of projects sec…
So here's my perspective on these two competing models: 1. I can read all of the code, modify it, and self-host it for my own purposes, but the license disallows me from re-selling it. 2. I can read, modify, self-host, and commercialize a subset of the code, and the rest is an opaque SaaS. To me, as a customer with no interest in re-selling this code, I don't see how #2 is better than #1 in any way. And I find it inc…
For #2 in good faith using the github model here,
Sure there’s Git and Github. Also sourcehut, using google cloud source repository or any managed git service.
Either 1) I need the software and I can have a team maintain it.
Electing for the software-as-a-service vs self hosted model is in itself.
1. I can compute, resources, maintenance and time The proprietary or a version of the product myself or a fork and get the feature functionality from other open source or provider.
2. Pay for the GitHub licensing cost and using the service and ok with magic abstractions to operate the software. (Which admirably lately has been bad.
Also frame it as from the beginning of the git project elected to also build all the same parity features, would it be the same tool, be the product that exists, or brain share it has today. Maybe not.
I maybe misunderstanding you here but in these cases opaqueness is part your trade off to offload fairly complex for a marginal cost that’s s decision by you.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
[Joe, Pulumi Founder here.] Said well (and thank you for being a customer and valuable member of our community!) The analogy I draw sometimes is that our open source infrastructure as code SDK ("Pulumi") is like Git, and our commercial offering ("Pulumi Cloud") is like GitHub. Like GitHub, the Pulumi Cloud offers valuable features that go beyond the open source project for teams looking to manage lots of projects sec…
So here's my perspective on these two competing models: 1. I can read all of the code, modify it, and self-host it for my own purposes, but the license disallows me from re-selling it. 2. I can read, modify, self-host, and commercialize a subset of the code, and the rest is an opaque SaaS. To me, as a customer with no interest in re-selling this code, I don't see how #2 is better than #1 in any way. And I find it inc…
If you want to build something with a bunch of smart people for a long period of time the outcome is raising venture capital, paying people salaries that are competitive to share holders, and won’t implode. The bsl is a consequence of that but it is a rule to guard from the few bad apple in this case.
What’s ethical or virtuous or perfect is very nuanced
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.
I do not call anything under BSL open source. I would prefer if companies when presenting the BSL talk about their schedule to open source, the schedule being when the Change License takes effect, at least if the Change License is an open source one.
For the next two years, HashiCorp provided virtually no enhancements to TFC except cosmetic changes. I submitted feature requests for small and large challenges. Sometimes I was even met with argument. Meanwhile, several competing services were born, likely out of necessity of their own founders. Ultimately I had to switch and about halfway out the TFC door they announced their bizarre pricing model changes.
HashiCorp had years and years to build a quality commercial product on top of Terraform but squandered the opportunity.
At first this reminded me of the Docker arc but it may be more like Chef.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I find it curious that Microsoft doesnt get more shit for demanding a CLA, especially given that embrace, extend, extinguish is in their DNA.
Even GNU projects ask people to sign a CLA.
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.
> BPL/EPL/SSPL was always fully within the spirit of open source It literally is not, and they only exist in order to not be.
The one restriction is that you can't compete with their hosted services using their software. Which 99% of people who use their software have zero interest in.
The "it's not fair! it's not real open source!" narrative is pumped up by companies like Amazon that feel entitled to use their monopoly power to leech value from these companies by selling paid versions of their products.