641–650 of 760 posts
Earlier 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.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It is powered by Terraform underneath-- but Pulumi has done a ton of work to make the abstraction seamless.
Thanks all. I'll add it to my ToDo list for checking out. :) --- 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. :/
Earlier 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.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Focal_point_(game_theory) If we don't have a common definition, everyone has their own, and there's no common understanding of what rights you have for a piece of Open Source software. That commons has far far more value than any one or ten pieces of software.
> 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…
I think it's a common shared understanding and a focal point, and there's huge value in preserving that. Having a different common understanding might be acceptable, and might even be an improvement, but only if people agree on it. Having no common understanding would mean something of great value was lost.
Right now, many different groups who may not all agree on all goals nonetheless gain value by sticking to Open Source, and not a dozen slight variations on additional restrictions. In the absence of that, we'd have the "non-commercial" group, the "educational use" group, the "don't compete with us" group, the "don't use for military applications" group, the "don't use for nuclear reactors" group, the "don't use to develop proprietary software" group, the "don't redistribute unmodified versions" group, the "don't distribute outdated versions" group, a dozen variations on "don't distribute if you disagree with our values" groups, the "don't distribute if you're a large company" group, the "don't distribute if you're a specific company" groups...
Every one of those is a license term I've seen advocated. Every one of those violates the OSD, so it thankfully stays obscure and unpopular, because enough people prefer using and contributing to software with less unusual licensing.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> 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.
> 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…
More here: https://www.weave.works/blog/statement-for-terraform-hashico...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
because there's a contention between the people developing the software and the startup community. it's obvious that for a company (money-making entity), that they're going to want to have a monopoly in providing the software aaS. That's the monetization strategy on otherwise free software. I don't think this is surprising. We saw this years ago with AWS and MongoDB. Yes, a startup can offer Vault cheaper since they…
SaaS itself is against the spirit of open source, if not the letter of the license. It is the most closed model of providing software, far more closed than closed source binaries. Whether it runs on open source behind the scenes doesn’t matter; your data is controlled by the provider and you have no privacy or ability to run anything on your own terms. At the very least anyone using open source to run SaaS for profit…
Running a service based on free software is absolutely within the spirit of free software. Free software isn't about a circle of gifts, it's about software freedoms. You're not obligated in spirit to "give something back" because you use free software.
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.
The difference between free software and open-source is a matter of marketing. Open-source is a way of presenting free software to businesses and investors. Free software is an unabashedly political movement, openly concerned first and foremost with the public good. But the licenses themselves and the software itself, those things are identical.
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…
> I argue the window is moving as to what “open source” means This has been the case since the 2000s, as companies want the branding without the openness. This is extremely well worn by now. I argue that companies who want it both ways are continuing to throw up chaff. But we know this chaff extremely well. None of this discussion is new. "open core" has always been a euphemism for "proprietary."
Yes. And in some ways, source available licensing is a nicer model for proprietary software than open core. At least with the former you can actually see all of the code to inspect how it works when something is broken.
Bleh. Every business wants to build on software freedom but they don't really want to see others freely build on their own software.
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…
> The CLA does not change the terms of the standard open source license used by our software such as MPL2 or MIT. You are still free to use our projects within your own projects or businesses, republish modified source, and more. Please reference the appropriate license for the project you're contributing to to learn more. Someone should try challenging the CLA when the pretext of it changes (their contributions bein…
> You hereby grant to HashiCorp and to recipients of software distributed by HashiCorp a perpetual, worldwide, non-exclusive, no-charge, royalty-free, irrevocable copyright license to reproduce, prepare derivative works of, publicly display, publicly perform, sublicense, and distribute Your Contributions and such derivative works.
This pretty much covers anything they'd need. (I'm not a lawyer.)