731–740 of 760 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That's where dual-licensing comes in like Artifex' AGPL + commercial licensing. But yes, most large Tech companies have a blanket ban on AGPL.
> most large Tech companies have a blanket ban on AGPL sounds like it's doing its intended job well then?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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) fi…
So if you got the rights from the BSL but the part about the code becoming Open Source you'd be happy with right? I think that's a completely fine attitude to take, and sure, all other things being equal, code licensed under the BSL is better than not having access to the source at all. But , given (at least) the majority of BSL projects were under an open source license, with external contributions, the spectre of "…
But this part:
> had they been more careful in their language (or even in their CLA), then people would be less annoyed.
I just don't agree. I think they were very careful in their language, and I keep wondering whether everyone here who is pissed at them even actually read it, because I feel like a lot of people keep saying they said things that they clearly worked hard to not say.
We built our OSS company (Apache 2.0) with Nomad at its core. We provide game server orchestration with a handful of services around it, which could be misconstrued to be considered providing a "competitive offering to HashiCorp." Needless to say, we'll be freezing our Nomad version at the last MPL version because of how vague the license is (intentionally). We also use CockroachDB which uses BSL, but we're not provi…
I would migrate off fast. If they are willing to do this with their oldest and most popular tool, I have no doubt they'll change the license of all of their code soon.
Funny how @mitchellh has decided not to join the conversation. Pretty sure he had the ultimate input on this decision, and historically he's engaged with HN directly. Hmm. Overall it seems like a loser move. Look what happened to Elasticsearch - to me and most others, ES no longer exists. I've happily moved on to OpenSearch and not looked back at poor kimchi. Due to their own actions, Elasticsearch is no longer relev…
I think you're being a little aggressive. It's a company, and they have to make money. Their stuff was opensourced, the good stuff will get forked, no need to hate Hashicorp. > Trust takes years to build, seconds to break, and forever to repair. Don't agree with that. That's really aggressive man. Hashicorp has built some awesome stuff, and tried to make a business based on Open Source. They haven't broken any contra…
All that I get from this is that HashiCorp is no longer an open source company. > However, there are other vendors who take advantage of pure OSS models, and the community work on OSS projects, for their own commercial goals, without providing material contributions back. We don’t believe this is in the spirit of open source. This is 100% in the spirit of open source. If this is a problem for them, why not adopt an o…
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…
Would this prevent you from integrating some modules such as AWS (I believe) from TF?
So much love for Pulumi from me, it’s an amazing product.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> They absolutely do. No, they absolutely do not. Pulumi - as in the actual tool , not its developers' equivalent to Terraform Cloud - would still exist and would have used those providers regardless of whether or not there's some Pulumi equivalent to Terraform Cloud. Pulumi also would've existed (and resulted in indirect profits via Pulumi Cloud) had that provider ecosystem not yet existed; it just would've been Pul…
> You say this as if it's a one-way street, but it ain't. Pulumi and Hashicorp profit from there being an ecosystem of providers compatible with both and therefore useful to both sets of customers. This is idealism. The reality is Pulumi's providers have no value for Terraform, which already built and curated its own ecosystem after years of time and effort. Then, Pulumi can spin up a directly competing product in a…
No, it's realism. The only one to blame for Hashicorp not adequately capitalizing on the two-way street that is multiple FOSS (well, formerly, in one case) IaC systems being compatible with one another... is Hashicorp. Instead of recognizing a case where "open source" is mutually beneficial, they'd rather take their ball and go home - and that's their right, but it ain't beyond criticism.
> The reality is Pulumi's providers have no value for Terraform, which already built and curated its own ecosystem after years of time and effort
The reality is that Hashicorp adopted Pulumi's strategy of autogenerating provider resources from API catalogs rather than maintaining handwritten bindings (i.e. what differentiates Pulumi's "native" v. "classic" providers). So yes, Pulumi's providers clearly have value. Hell, they can continue to have value even after Hashicorp's BUSL shenanigans thanks to Apache 2.0 being permissive.
> The answer is unequivocally "yes". Pulumi has.
The answer is hardly "unequivocal", per above and per the previous comments. Calling a collection of third-party-developed API shims a "product" is itself a massive stretch of the word, and calling bidirectional / mutually beneficial contribution to that collection "competition" is itself a massive stretch of the word.
IBM Cloud Secrets Manager is much better evidence in support of an unequivocal "yes" (though like most non-mainframe IBM-branded products these days I'd question whether or not it counts as "of any significance").
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The problem is these companies almost universally could not exist without open source software that allowed them to commercialize things. It is impossible for the vast majority of companies to ever "give back" as much to open source as they profit off of it - from the Linux kernel, all the GNU stuff, the nginx or apache webservers hosting webpages and API access, the haproxy load balancers, the corosync/pacemaker the…
A very thoughtful argument, thank you! To me, the difference is that these are all building blocks rather than standalone products. I think of these commercial products as making sense for standalone services, rather than libraries and other building blocks. But also: I think the business model that built all those open source building blocks has always been pretty shitty, relying on a lot of altruistic un- or poorly…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The problem is these companies almost universally could not exist without open source software that allowed them to commercialize things. It is impossible for the vast majority of companies to ever "give back" as much to open source as they profit off of it - from the Linux kernel, all the GNU stuff, the nginx or apache webservers hosting webpages and API access, the haproxy load balancers, the corosync/pacemaker the…
A very thoughtful argument, thank you! To me, the difference is that these are all building blocks rather than standalone products. I think of these commercial products as making sense for standalone services, rather than libraries and other building blocks. But also: I think the business model that built all those open source building blocks has always been pretty shitty, relying on a lot of altruistic un- or poorly…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If you don't want "free"loaders using your software why is it "free" in the first place?
By any chance are you familiar with Little Free Library ( https://littlefreelibrary.org/ ), those public boxes for people to take or leave books? How would you feel if someone took ALL the books, repeatedly, and then sold them? Would you just shrug and say "well that's totally fine, why is it free in the first place?" This behavior is antisocial, and completely destroys the offering/concept for everyone. I have a boo…
> My sense is that adopting AGPL for a brand new product typically causes the product to be dead on arrival.
It may hinder adoption (in the corporate world) but not contribution to the source. And if you want to promote the spirit of opensource and make money too, dual licensing with xGPL is the best way to go. MySQL is a successful example of this licensing and business model.