Earlier quoted context omitted.
Why, quite clearly: > Organizations providing competitive offerings to HashiCorp will no longer be permitted to use the community edition products free of charge under our BSL license. Commercial licensing terms are available and can enable use cases beyond the BSL limitations. Looks to me very similar to (A)GPL + commercial dual licensing, for instance.
I wish they'd just use the AGPL then.
HashiCorp adopts Business Source License
631–640 of 760 posts
Re: HashiCorp adopts Business Source License
#632Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
---
Actually, on second thought it sounds like the platform they're built on top of (Terraform) is now undergoing some fundamental business model changes.
Probably best to see how that plays out first. :/
Re: HashiCorp adopts Business Source License
#633There are a few realistic paths forward from here, to be confirmed when Hashi releases the full license they intend to use.
1. The Terraform community is large and talented, and we care intensely about open source. There will be a fork that remains open, and I'm hoping we can get all the commercial vendors and interested parties to be joint custodians of it. Like joeduffy says, their arguments are disingenuous, and their taking down of previous videos on their open source philosophy is too.
2. There is likely a Bring-Your-Own Terraform path, letting users supply their own Terraform for executing their code, and a commercial ecosystem that dispatches code and processes response with their own secret sauce. Just like you'd do with GitHub Actions.
3. Meanwhile, Terraform up to 1.5.5 is still open source, it's still amazing, and can still be used with the dozens of commercial tools out there.
Re: HashiCorp adopts Business Source License
#634Earlier quoted context omitted.
> This is purely a way for HashiCorp to ensure they are the only ones who can commercialize these formerly open source projects. Which is fine. But just go closed source, then, and own that, instead of trying to have it both ways. Pragmatically I would rather bsl than closed source and I am more likely to use a product that is bsl, with reasonable transfer time and license, than a 100% closed source product.
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.
We have a messaging flow building platform which is BSL. Anyone who wants to run their own instance is welcome to and people do and thus find it useful. The idea that the world would be better off if we made it closed source and prevented that... is just nonsense.
Re: HashiCorp adopts Business Source License
#635Earlier 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
> And Hashicorp managed to make it work as open source companies for >10 years also
You mean they lived off VC money for >10 years?
> There are many more "open core" companies, like TimescaleDB, Docker, etc, who then sell proprietary services on top of the open source software
As above. Since when is Docker making lots of money?
Re: HashiCorp adopts Business Source License
#636Earlier quoted context omitted.
> why bother with this fight? Because companies keep bringing this fight.
No, companies keep making services with code I can read and modify for my own use, and people in the community keep bringing this fight to them because they're peeved that other companies can't commercialize that software that they didn't build. Companies will naturally conclude they should just make proprietary software, which doesn't require a big fight. And I think that's a shame.
How many of these companies could exist if all these projects underpinning their own swapped to the SSPL, BSL, etc? And I don't mean now - once you reach a certain size, if you have to replace a bunch of dependencies, you have the resources to do it. But when these companies were smaller, would they have been able to create their own implementation of all these dependencies and still get their product to market? Would they have had the resources to commit to all of it? Would they have had the money to pay for non-FOSS options?
How many of these projects would still exist if the community couldn't commercialize them? We're not even talking about whether or not they ultimately end up contributing code back, etc., because it's not like these licenses give you some threshold of code contribution after which you can commercialize it. Sure, the possibility exists of some special private licensing agreement being struck, but that's possible with proprietary code, too.
Source available might sound fine from a personal use perspective, but it ignores the fact that the environment that made all of this possible would not have been possible under that model.
Re: HashiCorp adopts Business Source License
#637Earlier 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.
> Both aren't useful, but only one attempts to damage the common understanding of what "Open Source" means We have a messaging flow building platform which is BSL. Anyone who wants to run their own instance is welcome to and people do and thus find it useful . The idea that the world would be better off if we made it closed source and prevented that... is just nonsense.
How does making something closed source automatically mean someone can't run their own instance of it, even for free? Closed source does not mean 'You can only download this if you pay us', just as open source does not mean 'You can download this for free'
Re: HashiCorp adopts Business Source License
#638Earlier quoted context omitted.
could you say more about what hashicorp products Crossplane compares to/or doesnt?
Sure, Crossplane leverages the K8s control plane for managing desired state for systems outside of the kubernetes cluster. It functions in a very similar fashion to terraform but it’s storing its own state in etcd instead of another state store. That makes GitOps + Crossplane play really nicely together and avoid the extra complexity that happens with terraform apply operations. They have a terraform wrapper provider…
Re: HashiCorp adopts Business Source License
#639Companies want it for free, and individuals don't have enough luxury time to be able to do it themselves.
Prove me wrong and help patch or fund https://github.com/purpleidea/mgmt/ and you'll have an even better replacement for terraform!
Re: HashiCorp adopts Business Source License
#640Earlier quoted context omitted.
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...