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

621–630 of 760 posts

Re: HashiCorp adopts Business Source License

#621

Post by sanderjd »

aragilar wrote: post #610
sanderjd wrote: post #472

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> That commons has far far more value than any one or ten pieces of software. I don't think so. I suppose I can understand why people who feel strongly that the OSI definition is perfect (or at least extremely good) are very intent on protecting it, whereas I see it as flawed and am thus less concerned about this fracturing. So I understand your perspective upon reflection, though I honestly have a lot of trouble ima…

What would you change then? Practically only the 4th criteria would be one I'd change (but presumably it's there for a reason): "Integrity of the author's source code: The license may restrict source-code from being distributed in modified form only if the license allows the distribution of "patch files" with the source code for the purpose of modifying the program at build time. The license must explicitly permit di…

Yes, I don't think it makes sense that the definition of "open source" requires that people can arbitrarily re-sell it. Like, just the words themselves, in my view, clearly don't imply that. I'm happy to stipulate that this is what was meant when the term was invented and that there is a single gatekeeper of the official definition in order to keep it this way. I'm just telling you that I (and I think many people) find this to fall outside what the words directly evoke. So to me "source available" just sounds like a slightly more awkward synonym. But I don't mind using the official language, because I know people care a lot about this (to me) extra ideology, and I think they're entitled to advocate for that.

But this second part of the argument I just don't grok at all. These licenses like BSL provide significantly more of what I want in software I use than proprietary software does. (Namely, the ability to read, modify, and self-host the software of I choose to.)

I think what must be going on is that when you see a license like this you think "there is no point to something like that besides a PR stunt trying to imply proprietary software is open source", and I think "oh this seems like a really useful compromise that allows commercial enterprises to create software with code that I can read, modify, run myself, and contribute to if I want to, without a different company that did none of the work on the software making all the money from it". Just totally different perspectives.

Re: HashiCorp adopts Business Source License

#622

Post by sanderjd »

hyperdrivetech wrote: post #565
sanderjd wrote: post #443

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

It’s also fair to say this isnt black and white and open source is vast and there are certain software and companies where opting for #2 that definitely feel like a big rug pull, money grab, and smack in the face to the community that supported them. (Is red hat in my opinion) 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 sa…

Yeah, I think this is right, and well put.

Re: HashiCorp adopts Business Source License

#623

Post by rirze »

grudg3 wrote: post #619
vbezhenar wrote: post #604

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My biggest issue with terraform is concept of state file. It seems that Pulumi continues on this model. I wish someone came up with innovative idea of not needing state file.

Bicep does that, but it's Azure only, and you can't really 'destroy', just apply.

From my prelimary search, Bicep does utilize a state file, but it is completely hidden from the end users. Seems to be managed in Azure directly and automagically.

https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/azure/azure-resource-manag...

Re: HashiCorp adopts Business Source License

#624

Post by rirze »

nailer wrote: post #590
justinclift wrote: post #583

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Hadn't heard of Pulumi before. It sounds like a Terraform alternative, but looking at the website it doesn't really convey if it's a Terraform fork or ground-up re-write, or something else?

Pulumi is infra as code. Not like Terraform define it - using the world's most hated config file format - but actual code - Python, TypeScript, etc.

It is powered by Terraform underneath-- but Pulumi has done a ton of work to make the abstraction seamless.

Re: HashiCorp adopts Business Source License

#625

Post by rirze »

yevpats wrote: post #551

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…

I doubt this. Have you gone through AWS Provider source code? You're telling me that's a multi-million dollar repository? Their schema is horrible, badly documented and barely automated.

Maybe the new effort is going into AWS native provider but I really doubt the default AWS provider is getting enough attention.

Re: HashiCorp adopts Business Source License

#626

Post by n42 »

MattJ100 wrote: post #473
asymmetric wrote: post #451

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If they made their tools AGPL, they themselves couldn’t build a cloud offering with additional, closed-source features.

That's not true. As the copyright holder they are not bound by the licence that they release it to others under. The reason AGPL isn't being adopted in these situations is that it doesn't sufficiently protect against someone doing what e.g. AWS repeatedly does - turning open-source projects into services and then dominating the market while continuing to benefit from the upstream project. See the ElasticSearch licenc…

Isn’t that precisely what AGPL is for?

Re: HashiCorp adopts Business Source License

#627

Post by dragonwriter »

hkt wrote: post #516
dragonwriter wrote: post #504

Earlier 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.

MIT, BSD, and GPL are all on both OSI’s list of Open Source licenses and the FSF’s list of Free Software licenses.

Yes, the FSF has a general preference that people use copyleft licenses like the GPL, but they recognize that permissive licenses meet the Free Software Definition.

Re: HashiCorp adopts Business Source License

#628

Post by cjaybo »

riffraff wrote: post #432
toomuchtodo wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I argue the window is moving as to what “open source” means out of survival. Source available is the new open source, and what young technologists will grow up grinding on. You’ll have folks complain about it during the transition (as happens with any Overton window sort of event), but they’ll move on eventually and a new crop of tech industry will grow up with this as the new normal. Change is inevitable, broadly sp…

The window can't move, as there is an official version of what "open source" means, the Open Source Definition, which does not restrict you from reselling stuff. We've had "source available" for a long time, which means something else. I don't disagree that people may still use SA software more as time goes by, but I would argue that when possible people will prefer open source controlled by entities that keep it suc…

“The window can’t move”

I’d kill for your confidence

Re: HashiCorp adopts Business Source License

#629

Post by JohnFen »

sanderjd wrote: post #454
JohnFen wrote: post #155

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I agree. But there are an awful lot of younger devs who really do seem to confuse "open source" with "source available". It's worth educating people about this.

So, I don't think this is a generational thing. I think most people of all ages and generations have mostly just not thought about this. But the reason more people are thinking about it now is that the distribution model has changed on a way that has highlighted an existential weakness with this model.

I lack data, so I cannot say anything broadly. But in the devs that I know, this is 100% a generational thing. It may be different in different circles.

Re: HashiCorp adopts Business Source License

#630

Post by orra »

sanderjd wrote: post #612
orra wrote: post #502

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> But I do think this purist perspective on open source is just going to result in more Snowflakes and fewer Hashicorps, because why bother with this fight? Orgs like Hashicorp clearly think they benefit by pretending to be open source. They could simply stop being disingenuous about their source available proprietary software, and nobody would stop them.

First of all, as is probably clear if you read my comments on this, I personally think it would be better if the definition of "open source" did not exclude this kind of re-sale limitation. I don't think it's intuitive at all that this is required to fit the definition of "open source". It seems to me like a tacked on ideological stance from the gatekeeper of the definition, that isn't present in or implied by the wo…

> They aren't being disingenuous. You're putting words in their mouth, and then getting mad at them about those words they didn't say.

No, they say open source needs to evolve, the implication this is an evolution (not devolution) of open source.

Their announcement talks about how they spoke to OSS experts. That's not relevant: the experts would simply have said: that's not open source.

Hashicorp several times say the BSL is permissive. Permissive is a well established term in software licensing. No, the BSL is not. The BSD and MIT and Apache licenses are permissive.

Finally there is this claptrap from their FAQ:

> 17. Does HashiCorp still believe in open source? > > Yes. [...]

Post reply on HN