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

591–600 of 760 posts

Re: HashiCorp adopts Business Source License

#591

Post by e12e »

falcolas wrote: post #100
rcme wrote: post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Source-available is still hugely beneficial to users, even if it’s not open source.

Closed source can (and does, see Windows) provide source to customers too.

> Closed source can (and does, see Windows) provide source to customers too.

This just means it's Source Available to certain customers - Closed Source to others.

I agree that universally available "timebomb open source" "Source Available" is different from "Closed Source", though.

It allows for certain risk planning, like: If HashiCorp goes away, we will be able to host and patch (and keep using) product X for the foreseeable future - along with the ability to actually read the code and determine if it is something worth touching with a ten foot pole...

Re: HashiCorp adopts Business Source License

#592

Post by e12e »

_msw_ wrote: post #493
pabs3 wrote: post #482

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Does Amazon have any policies against offering AGPv3 software as a service? Does Amazon contribute funding back to the software projects they offer as a service? Does Amazon contribute code changes back to the software projects they modified when offering them as a service?

> Does Amazon have any policies against offering AGPv3 software as a service? Each use of AGPLv3 licensed software has to be reviewed to ensure that the obligations of the license can be and will be met (and also screen for cases where it is known that the vendor of software does not prefer a company like Amazon import the software under a FOSS license). Today we use AGPLv3 licensed software internally, and include A…

>> Does Amazon contribute code changes back to the software projects they modified when offering them as a service?

> Yes, but not all changes are appropriate for upstream.

But the (modified) source is available to consumers of the service either way, under the AGPL?

Re: HashiCorp adopts Business Source License

#593

Post by ednxzu »

INTPenis wrote: post #539
wlonkly wrote: post #243

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But the license prohibits competitive use, not commercial use, right? So using Vault in production is no problem if you're using it as part of the infrastructure of a company that isn't competing with Hashicorp. Using it as a backend for a password manager... more of a grey area, but Hashicorp doesn't offer a password manager.

The very first lines of the license text say that you're permitted to use the software for "non-production use".

https://github.com/hashicorp/vault/blob/main/LICENSE#L8-L11

Clearly states that you can use it in a production setup.

Re: HashiCorp adopts Business Source License

#594

Post by linuxftw »

pgug wrote: post #557
linuxftw wrote: post #199

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

No, I don't know of one. It seems Hashicorpo Vault has a good head start. But up until 11 hours ago, the code was MPL 2.0 licensed, so somebody could fork and start a project under one of those foundations.

Re: HashiCorp adopts Business Source License

#595

Post by sgt »

personomas wrote: post #556
speedgoose wrote: post #446

Well, that simplifies a lot the choice between Nomad and Kubernetes.

Nomad is a dead product. I think Terraform has hope though

Why do you say that? I've been considering Nomad recently and I didn't perceive it as dead at all. Their community seems pretty vibrant too.

Re: HashiCorp adopts Business Source License

#597

Post by personomas »

sgt wrote: post #595
personomas wrote: post #556

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Nomad is a dead product. I think Terraform has hope though

Why do you say that? I've been considering Nomad recently and I didn't perceive it as dead at all. Their community seems pretty vibrant too.

TBH I don't know anything about Nomand. Feel free to use it. That might be good for you, I certainly don't want to deter you. All I meant was that I didn't think Nomad would survive in the Long Term a change of license from MIT to BSL, when there also exists Kubernetes.

On the contrary, I think Terraform will survive in form or another. Either the BSL license will be lenient enough or people will fork Terraform and support it.

Re: HashiCorp adopts Business Source License

#598

Post by Macha »

pydry wrote: post #571
Macha wrote: post #563

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think I'd be fine _using_ an AGPL+CLA product, but not contributing.

Thats exactly the point.

I'm not sure if we're agreeing or not to be honest. I'm not sure if you're implying it's a bad thing that people won't contribute to AGPL+CLA (and thereby justifies these more restrictive licenses), or agreeing that people shouldn't contribute to AGPL+CLA (and thereby volunteer their time to the benefit of one specific vendor).

Re: HashiCorp adopts Business Source License

#599

Post by comprev »

Aeolun wrote: post #297
jen20 wrote: post #223

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It need not be HashiCorp employees. I merged as many (if not more) PRs into Terraform after leaving as I did while working there - the notion of community maintainers was nixed in 2018, though that was never communicated.

They actively decided against free labor? Wow.

Control over the product direction is more important than free labour

Re: HashiCorp adopts Business Source License

#600

Post by wlonkly »

deadbunny wrote: post #292
wlonkly wrote: post #243

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But the license prohibits competitive use, not commercial use, right? So using Vault in production is no problem if you're using it as part of the infrastructure of a company that isn't competing with Hashicorp. Using it as a backend for a password manager... more of a grey area, but Hashicorp doesn't offer a password manager.

But what if they do in X years? Suddenly that company is out of compliance with the BSL.

Oh, for sure, and if you're a developer tooling/devopsy-stuff company that would give me pause (or convince me to plan a migration, or to use an alternative, etc.)

But if you're, say, fashion retail, or something, then the risk is pretty low.

Post reply on HN