4 ms·

If so, you can check out Infisical (https://github.com/Infisical/infisical https://github.com/Infisical/infisical) as an open source alternative to Vault. The a

If so, you can check out Infisical (https://github.com/Infisical/infisical https://github.com/Infisical/infisical) as an open source alternative to Vault. The absolute majority of our codebase is licensed under MIT and we have no intentions to change that. Disclaimer: I'm one of the founders.

andrewstuart2 3y ago
I'll definitely check it out. That said, I'm starting to feel a lot more skeptical of the ability for even founders to manage stuff like this. I would say the same of my own OSS as a "founder," but if my company controls it in some way then I'm not sure there's a reasonable way for me to ensure that continues in perpetuity. At least not via a split model like a lot of these recent news stories have revolved around. From what I've seen of Mitchell as well, at least in the past, I kind of doubt this is something he would have gone through with on his own.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
- civilitty 3y ago
  I think the easiest way to manage it is essentially to do nothing. Accept open source contributions without a contributor license agreement and their copyright locks in future maintainers, yourself included. Extricating those contributions eventually becomes impossible without a cleanroom rewrite that is usually economically impractical and way too risky to a business with revenue.
  - nyanpasu64 3y ago
    This requires a copyleft license, and can be bypassed if all contributors agree to sign away their code to a company trying to relicense and monetize the code (as the Audacity contributors did for some reason).
Operyl 3y ago
I am absolutely a huge fan of your company providing 30 minute walk throughs of the codebase for new contributors, I have never seen that before!
thayne 3y ago
> we have no intentions to change that I suspect that Hashicorp would have said the same thing a couple years ago.
- rizky05 3y ago
  [dead]
brunoqc 3y ago
> The absolute majority of our codebase is licensed under MIT What is not MIT licensed? When you self-host, do you have access to every features for free?

andrewstuart2 3y ago

I'll definitely check it out. That said, I'm starting to feel a lot more skeptical of the ability for even founders to manage stuff like this. I would say the same of my own OSS as a "founder," but if my company controls it in some way then I'm not sure there's a reasonable way for me to ensure that continues in perpetuity. At least not via a split model like a lot of these recent news stories have revolved around. From what I've seen of Mitchell as well, at least in the past, I kind of doubt this is something he would have gone through with on his own.

deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
civilitty 3y ago
I think the easiest way to manage it is essentially to do nothing. Accept open source contributions without a contributor license agreement and their copyright locks in future maintainers, yourself included. Extricating those contributions eventually becomes impossible without a cleanroom rewrite that is usually economically impractical and way too risky to a business with revenue.
- nyanpasu64 3y ago
  This requires a copyleft license, and can be bypassed if all contributors agree to sign away their code to a company trying to relicense and monetize the code (as the Audacity contributors did for some reason).

Operyl 3y ago

I am absolutely a huge fan of your company providing 30 minute walk throughs of the codebase for new contributors, I have never seen that before!

thayne 3y ago

> we have no intentions to change that I suspect that Hashicorp would have said the same thing a couple years ago.

rizky05 3y ago
[dead]

brunoqc 3y ago

> The absolute majority of our codebase is licensed under MIT What is not MIT licensed? When you self-host, do you have access to every features for free?