3 ms·
I mean, sure, but there's no particular reason to believe that Infisical will keep its current licensing if and when when financial times get tough for them. W
by JeremyNT 3y ago
I mean, sure, but there's no particular reason to believe that Infisical will keep its current licensing if and when when financial times get tough for them.
When you rely on OSS products that are developed almost exclusively by companies, you just need to assume that one day there's going to be a rug pull and plan accordingly.
- riku_iki 3y ago> Infisical will keep its current licensing I think license they chose doesn't allow to change licensing, unless they require 3p contributors to sign some agreement to give up copyright rights like Hashi asked to do. So, we can check right away if infisical asks to sign agreement or not.
- vmatsiiako 3y agoWe have not asked any contributors to sign a CLA agreement.
- pxc 3y agoInfisical doesn't need a CLA because it's permissively licensed. People who contribute their code under the project's license (MIT) have already agreed that anyone (Infisical or anyone else) can take their code fork it into a proprietary project anyway.
- riku_iki 3y ago> that anyone (Infisical or anyone else) yes, and in case of Hashi, people agreed on CLA granted all rights exclusively to Hashi, not "anyone else"