5 ms·

We are sort of competitors... kind of... but nevertheless feel free to switch to our MPL fork of Terraform :) https://github.com/diggerhq/open-terraform https:/

We are sort of competitors... kind of... but nevertheless feel free to switch to our MPL fork of Terraform :) https://github.com/diggerhq/open-terraform https://github.com/diggerhq/open-terraform

hdjjhhvvhga 3y ago
While I support you I'm not sure you can use "Teraform" in the name, even if it is Terraform.
- gray_-_wolf 3y ago
  So, earthform? :)
  - linuxftw 3y ago
    Terrafork.
  - tough 3y ago
    I liked terrafork
    - vglen 3y ago
      how about terraforkem ?
- jakozaur 3y ago
  Cosmoform, NexaForm, UltraForm, TerraCraft, PlanetaryForm, TerraNova, TerraMatrix, TerraBeyond, SpaceMold, AstroForm. Pick your favorite.
  - thinkmassive 3y ago
    How about simply: tf
  - stronglikedan 3y ago
    CloudSeeder (or maybe just CloudSeed)
- hnlmorg 3y ago
  Hashicorp have Terraform registered as a trademark[0] and they themselves have said they don't want the name used in a way that is confusing or suggests enforcement by Hashicorp[1]. So the GP definitely cannot call themselves "OpenTerraform". [0] https://tmsearch.uspto.gov/bin/showfield?f=doc&state=4810:yja3vq.2.11 https://tmsearch.uspto.gov/bin/showfield?f=doc&state=4810:yj... [1] https://www.hashicorp.com/brand https://www.hashicorp.com/brand
ilc 3y ago
Go with the GPL, without copyright assignment. There's real reasons to do this. It stops exactly what HashiCorp is doing, and you are likely giving HashiCorp the ability to take your code without giving back.
- candiddevmike 3y ago
  You can't change the MPL code to GPL. You can change net-new files to GPL, but the existing files must remain MPL AFAIK (unless you're HashiCorp). IANAL
  - remram 3y ago
    Yes in fact Mozilla has a document about this specifically: https://www.mozilla.org/en-US/MPL/2.0/combining-mpl-and-gpl/ https://www.mozilla.org/en-US/MPL/2.0/combining-mpl-and-gpl/ > When someone combines a file or files licensed under the Mozilla Public License, version 2.0 ("MPL") with a project licensed under the GNU General Public License or Lesser General Public Licenses ("(L)GPL"), the MPL's Section 3.3 allows distribution of the combined work (the "Larger Work") subject to the terms of both licenses, as long as certain conditions are met.
    - deleted 3y ago
      [deleted]
    - ilc 3y ago
      Distributing Solely Under the (L)GPL Once a file has been distributed under both the (L)GPL and the MPL, recipients of that file can later distribute it solely under the terms of the (L)GPL, in accordance with the terms of that license. If a project wishes to do this, and not to allow others to use their version of this file under the MPL, the project can indicate its decision by deleting the MPL headers described in Exhibit A of the license and replacing them with the standard notice recommended by the (L)GPL. Copyright notices indicating authorship of the file should be retained. ... So you combine with GPL code, and then, say "I don't want to use the MPL." Is this really so complicated? All updates to be done in the future are licensed under the GPL. The only firm that benefits from the MPL here is Hashicorp, which is the company that the fork is being done against. Fork it and be done... It isn't like the MPL code can integrate with the BSL code.
jen20 3y ago
While I’m sure you are earnest, you should probably stop right now. Forking a repo is not sufficient. You need to remove trademark infringement and anything which does not fall under the MPLv2 license - much like the (former) CentOS process for rebuilding RHEL. Should you ever distribute binaries, you also need to do a better job than HashiCorp of obeying the license terms of your dependencies around attribution. Finally, as someone who has actually done the job of core maintenance of Terraform, I suspect you are also vastly underestimating the amount of work involved. I just set a reminder to look at this fork in 3 months, I’d put money on it being dead.
- hluska 3y ago
  [flagged]
  - jen20 3y ago
    Well, they appear NOT to know these things, since the name of the repo infringes a trademark, and infringing use of the logo is right in the middle of the README. “We’ll get to fixing that later” is not a valid response - this is clearly a minimal-effort attempt at a mindshare land grab from a competitor. Clicking the fork button is not “work” to be clear.
- topher200 3y ago
  It didn't last 3 days -- the repo now 404s
abledon 3y ago
teraformos
lijok 3y ago
This will be dead within 3 months. The naivety with which your company made this fork tells me all I need to know about Digger as a product.

We are sort of competitors... kind of... but nevertheless feel free to switch to our MPL fork of Terraform :) https://github.com/diggerhq/open-terraform https://github.com/diggerhq/open-terraform

hdjjhhvvhga 3y ago

While I support you I'm not sure you can use "Teraform" in the name, even if it is Terraform.

gray_-_wolf 3y ago
So, earthform? :)
- linuxftw 3y ago
  Terrafork.
- tough 3y ago
  I liked terrafork
  - vglen 3y ago
    how about terraforkem ?
jakozaur 3y ago
Cosmoform, NexaForm, UltraForm, TerraCraft, PlanetaryForm, TerraNova, TerraMatrix, TerraBeyond, SpaceMold, AstroForm. Pick your favorite.
- thinkmassive 3y ago
  How about simply: tf
- stronglikedan 3y ago
  CloudSeeder (or maybe just CloudSeed)
hnlmorg 3y ago
Hashicorp have Terraform registered as a trademark[0] and they themselves have said they don't want the name used in a way that is confusing or suggests enforcement by Hashicorp[1]. So the GP definitely cannot call themselves "OpenTerraform". [0] https://tmsearch.uspto.gov/bin/showfield?f=doc&state=4810:yja3vq.2.11 https://tmsearch.uspto.gov/bin/showfield?f=doc&state=4810:yj... [1] https://www.hashicorp.com/brand https://www.hashicorp.com/brand

ilc 3y ago

Go with the GPL, without copyright assignment. There's real reasons to do this. It stops exactly what HashiCorp is doing, and you are likely giving HashiCorp the ability to take your code without giving back.

candiddevmike 3y ago
You can't change the MPL code to GPL. You can change net-new files to GPL, but the existing files must remain MPL AFAIK (unless you're HashiCorp). IANAL
- remram 3y ago
  Yes in fact Mozilla has a document about this specifically: https://www.mozilla.org/en-US/MPL/2.0/combining-mpl-and-gpl/ https://www.mozilla.org/en-US/MPL/2.0/combining-mpl-and-gpl/ > When someone combines a file or files licensed under the Mozilla Public License, version 2.0 ("MPL") with a project licensed under the GNU General Public License or Lesser General Public Licenses ("(L)GPL"), the MPL's Section 3.3 allows distribution of the combined work (the "Larger Work") subject to the terms of both licenses, as long as certain conditions are met.
  - deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
  - ilc 3y ago
    Distributing Solely Under the (L)GPL Once a file has been distributed under both the (L)GPL and the MPL, recipients of that file can later distribute it solely under the terms of the (L)GPL, in accordance with the terms of that license. If a project wishes to do this, and not to allow others to use their version of this file under the MPL, the project can indicate its decision by deleting the MPL headers described in Exhibit A of the license and replacing them with the standard notice recommended by the (L)GPL. Copyright notices indicating authorship of the file should be retained. ... So you combine with GPL code, and then, say "I don't want to use the MPL." Is this really so complicated? All updates to be done in the future are licensed under the GPL. The only firm that benefits from the MPL here is Hashicorp, which is the company that the fork is being done against. Fork it and be done... It isn't like the MPL code can integrate with the BSL code.

jen20 3y ago

While I’m sure you are earnest, you should probably stop right now. Forking a repo is not sufficient. You need to remove trademark infringement and anything which does not fall under the MPLv2 license - much like the (former) CentOS process for rebuilding RHEL. Should you ever distribute binaries, you also need to do a better job than HashiCorp of obeying the license terms of your dependencies around attribution. Finally, as someone who has actually done the job of core maintenance of Terraform, I suspect you are also vastly underestimating the amount of work involved. I just set a reminder to look at this fork in 3 months, I’d put money on it being dead.

hluska 3y ago
[flagged]
- jen20 3y ago
  Well, they appear NOT to know these things, since the name of the repo infringes a trademark, and infringing use of the logo is right in the middle of the README. “We’ll get to fixing that later” is not a valid response - this is clearly a minimal-effort attempt at a mindshare land grab from a competitor. Clicking the fork button is not “work” to be clear.
topher200 3y ago
It didn't last 3 days -- the repo now 404s

abledon 3y ago

teraformos

lijok 3y ago

This will be dead within 3 months. The naivety with which your company made this fork tells me all I need to know about Digger as a product.