4 ms·

> But, HashiCorp says that, the thing we develop (i.e. Terraform) is used by others and generate revenue for them, this is great, but we can't generate enough r

> But, HashiCorp says that, the thing we develop (i.e. Terraform) is used by others and generate revenue for them, this is great, but we can't generate enough revenue from it to keep the company afloat and continue providing TerraForm development, and sell it as a product at the same time. > What should they do? Suck it up, open source Terraform under a non profit foundation, find a new source of revenue. Or stop developing Terraform, cut expenditures, and move on with life. There's no universe where "bait and switch customers who wanted open source into paying us by switching licenses" is a viable option. > So, just because people adapted it, and HashiCorp cannot survive, should they say, we're closing shop, it's all MIT now, do whatever you want, bye!? Exactly, you know the answer, you just don't like the implications. People somehow think that a business which started an open source project "deserves" to profit from it. They do not. Open source is a great way to get people to know who you are and build things that are interoperable with your (proprietary, closed source) SaaS offerings. It is not in itself a revenue source. If the viability of your business is predicated on being the only one able to provide your project as a service and earn that service revenue gravy, just leave it closed source and proprietary. Sure, you won't get adoption at anywhere near the rate, but that's the tradeoff you make.

spencerflem 3y ago
How is them shutting down and them continuing under a closed source licence any different for you?
stu2b50 3y ago
> Or stop developing Terraform, cut expenditures, and move on with life. How would that be an improvement to anyone in any way? If you want, you can just pretend that Terraform is dead and Hashicorp will never push another commit for it. The people who can make the compromises BSL has can continue to use it. > If the viability of your business is predicated on being the only one able to provide your project as a service and earn that service revenue gravy, just leave it closed source and proprietary. Sure, you won't get adoption at anywhere near the rate, but that's the tradeoff you make. I don’t understand why this is a binary. If the conditions of the BSL are unacceptable to YOU that’s fine, just pretend it’s closed source if you wish. For others, that the BSL isn’t completely proprietary is useful for them - let it be useful. Your wishes need not dictate everyone else’s.
bayindirh 3y ago
> Exactly, you know the answer, No. It was not a rhetorical device. > you just don't like the implications. I don't know which implications you're talking about, it was a question without prejudice or load. > People somehow think that a business which started an open source project "deserves" to profit from it. I do not agree. I don't hold a position stating that "TF should stay open, and companies should profit from it while giving it patches if you feel like it". I'm the opposite, and I find the approach to permissive licenses as "Ooo... Free tool to build a new product on and profit" as unethical to begin with. I put anything and everything I put out as A/GPLv3 or GFDL, because I produce that code for myself, on my free time, and I don't have a secret desire for it to be forked and closed down for internet cookie points. If you want to use my tool for any reason (which are not very sophisticated to begin with), comply with GPL, or roll your own. I. Don't. Care. I also pay for tons of things. Docker, cloud storage, programming fonts I use, anything I deem worth the money they're asking for. I also use Vagrant a lot, share my Vagrantfiles (again under GPLv3), and if they begin to charge like Docker, I'll pay for it, if I deem it's worth the money they ask for. However, at the end of the day, I'm a Free Software advocate. I use Free Software to the extent possible, and develop my software as Free Software. Not Open Source software under some permissive license to be grabbed and forked to death.

spencerflem 3y ago

How is them shutting down and them continuing under a closed source licence any different for you?

stu2b50 3y ago

> Or stop developing Terraform, cut expenditures, and move on with life. How would that be an improvement to anyone in any way? If you want, you can just pretend that Terraform is dead and Hashicorp will never push another commit for it. The people who can make the compromises BSL has can continue to use it. > If the viability of your business is predicated on being the only one able to provide your project as a service and earn that service revenue gravy, just leave it closed source and proprietary. Sure, you won't get adoption at anywhere near the rate, but that's the tradeoff you make. I don’t understand why this is a binary. If the conditions of the BSL are unacceptable to YOU that’s fine, just pretend it’s closed source if you wish. For others, that the BSL isn’t completely proprietary is useful for them - let it be useful. Your wishes need not dictate everyone else’s.

bayindirh 3y ago

> Exactly, you know the answer, No. It was not a rhetorical device. > you just don't like the implications. I don't know which implications you're talking about, it was a question without prejudice or load. > People somehow think that a business which started an open source project "deserves" to profit from it. I do not agree. I don't hold a position stating that "TF should stay open, and companies should profit from it while giving it patches if you feel like it". I'm the opposite, and I find the approach to permissive licenses as "Ooo... Free tool to build a new product on and profit" as unethical to begin with. I put anything and everything I put out as A/GPLv3 or GFDL, because I produce that code for myself, on my free time, and I don't have a secret desire for it to be forked and closed down for internet cookie points. If you want to use my tool for any reason (which are not very sophisticated to begin with), comply with GPL, or roll your own. I. Don't. Care. I also pay for tons of things. Docker, cloud storage, programming fonts I use, anything I deem worth the money they're asking for. I also use Vagrant a lot, share my Vagrantfiles (again under GPLv3), and if they begin to charge like Docker, I'll pay for it, if I deem it's worth the money they ask for. However, at the end of the day, I'm a Free Software advocate. I use Free Software to the extent possible, and develop my software as Free Software. Not Open Source software under some permissive license to be grabbed and forked to death.