571–580 of 760 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> 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)
I think I'd be fine _using_ an AGPL+CLA product, but not contributing.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Closed source can (and does, see Windows) provide source to customers too.
No, if words have meaning, "closed source" does not provide source. Closed source does not mean "not open source."
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Pulumi Founder/CEO here. The blog post is disingenuous. We tried many times to contribute upstream fixes to Terraform providers, but HashiCorp would never accept them. So we've had to maintain forks. They lost their OSS DNA a long time ago, and this move just puts the final nail in the coffin. Thankfully over time, they already pushed responsibility for most Terraform providers back onto their partners, so I'm hopefu…
>We tried many times to contribute upstream fixes to Terraform providers, but HashiCorp would never accept them. So we've had to maintain forks. They lost their OSS DNA a long time ago, and this move just puts the final nail in the coffin. OSS doesn't mean that you have to accept any PRs that showed up in your repo, nor does it mean that you have to let a competitor steer your project simply because you're building i…
To not lose control you need to have people assign copyright which is generally a headache. I've only heard of the FSF doing that .. (not sure why this hasn't been streamlined electronically somehow)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If I have to pay developers, operate a business, allocate time and money to create value and take the risk that comes with it, and you come and take my work unchanged, strip all atribution and mereley resell it, then I can't succeed by definition. The most talented businessman on earth cannot. If that's what you think open source is, it'll vanish. No commercial system can exist like that and it should not because it…
Open source is what's written in the license, no more, no less. It doesn't have spirits or souls.
Back in the real world, with people in it, the GPL and (by extension) Open Source were created for underlying reasons.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> it seems like software companies start noticeably going downhill about 1.5 years after they go public. I firmly believe this is a fact too. One place I recently worked, I joined as it was going public and it went downhill quickly. The friends I’d made there talked about the fun perks, holidays and benefits the company was known for. Over the space of less than a year most of the culture atrophied, people left in dr…
I hate to say it but this feels inevitable. We've accepted that the requirement (legally!) of a public company is to deliver the maximum possible returns to investors, and as such, employees become a cost center to optimize away, and just generally, anything that negatively impacts the quarterly report must be eliminated, even if that thing is the only thing that will keep the next quarterly report in the black. Quar…
Making it seem like it's a legal requirement however is a very good thing for all the corporate raiders out there.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Pulumi Founder/CEO here. The blog post is disingenuous. We tried many times to contribute upstream fixes to Terraform providers, but HashiCorp would never accept them. So we've had to maintain forks. They lost their OSS DNA a long time ago, and this move just puts the final nail in the coffin. Thankfully over time, they already pushed responsibility for most Terraform providers back onto their partners, so I'm hopefu…
>We tried many times to contribute upstream fixes to Terraform providers, but HashiCorp would never accept them. So we've had to maintain forks. They lost their OSS DNA a long time ago, and this move just puts the final nail in the coffin. OSS doesn't mean that you have to accept any PRs that showed up in your repo, nor does it mean that you have to let a competitor steer your project simply because you're building i…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> There are many sustainable open source companies. What are some examples?
SUSE, Canonical, Prisma (though their dashboard is closed source), Gitlab, pretty much every crypto company in the blockchain/web3 space. And Hashicorp + Red Hat managed to make it work as open source companies for >10 years also There are many more "open core" companies, like TimescaleDB, Docker, etc, who then sell proprietary services on top of the open source software
SUSE is a niche player that was bought out in various forms a number of times.
Canonical is largely a billionaire's toy and hasn't published financial numbers in half a decade. They were losing money last time I looked at them.
Don't know Prisma.
Gitlab is losing money.
For the crypto companies, let's hold off on any of that in terms of "sustainability".
Look at the top 20 software companies. How many of them have open source their core product, their main revenue source?
HashiCorp's CLA page from two months ago ( https://web.archive.org/web/20230610041432/https://www.hashi... ): "We require our external contributors to sign a Contributor License Agreement ("CLA") in order to ensure that our projects remain licensed under Free and Open Source licenses such as MPL2 while allowing HashiCorp to build a sustainable business. HashiCorp is committed to having a true Free and Open Source Sof…
Linux doesn't require a CLA for contributions. These open source cosplay clowns do.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> If it's so simple, Pulumi could have done this themselves. Why didn't they? Because that would be a waste of time unless there's some specific case where an existing provider is insufficient. > Would Pulumi have been as successful without leveraging the vast ecosystem of existing Terraform providers? Now they are a growing Terraform competitor. Pulumi itself is free software, just like Terraform was (and hopefully…
Are you pretending they aren't a competitor profiting off that work though? Pulumi is free, except you pay for the features that aren't free: https://www.pulumi.com/pricing/ . So, Pulumi has grown their directly competing product partially on top of the Terraform ecosystem - and I'd argue they'd be half as successful without reusing Terraform providers - and make money off of that product. It's at least understandabl…
That's being disingenuous. The link you cite is the pricing of Pulumi Cloud. Of course hosting infra can cost money. The second non-heading line in your link shows a way to host Pulumi on your own infra and that is fully free: https://www.pulumi.com/docs/concepts/state#using-a-self-mana...