4 ms·
> Your contributions are eventually going to be moved under a non-open license so the company in question can secure their revenue stream and you can do nothing
by PoignardAzur 3y ago
> Your contributions are eventually going to be moved under a non-open license so the company in question can secure their revenue stream and you can do nothing about it.
I think what you say is factually correct, but maybe misrepresents the situation a bit.
The license automatically converts to full open-source after 4 years. Maybe this isn't ideal, but it isn't "big company takes your code and locks it away forever" either.
- ignoramous 3y ago4 years is an eternity in software; a slap on the face, it isn't a concession.
- PoignardAzur 3y agoIt's a metaphorical eternity, not a literal eternity. Four years ago is 2019; I use plenty of software from then. And if I understand the license correctly, you're perfectly free to use the software in your own open-source projects, and your commercial projects unless they're a re-packaging of Hashicorp's own, etc. We shouldn't act like this is an evil business decision, or like this is morally equivalent to proprietary software that does stay proprietary forever with no apology or caveats.
- johannes1234321 3y agoFour years u patched with pote trial security issues? Probably depending on four year old libraries which are annoying to get, based on build.tooling which is outdated ...
- bombcar 3y agoAs a starting point it’s a great line; rather than closed source have something that worst case you can use in four years. As a restriction added to something previously open, it’s horrendous. AGPL would be better.