5 ms·

I don't think that's what GP means by "legally binding" When a company gives you a license that has terms written in it, that license is binding... on them as

by yebyen 3y ago

I don't think that's what GP means by "legally binding" When a company gives you a license that has terms written in it, that license is binding... on them as well as you. When a company gives you a document that refers to an FAQ that they can change on the fly to meet their needs, and make changes to it, that is a signal that they do not view the license's terms as binding on them. Only on you (the user / developer working on an integrated or derivative work.) The license that grants you permission to use the software as long as you remain on the right side of this line, which we can move as we deign it necessary to move the line is not much of a license grant. I just heard it called "bullshit license" and I think that's the best explanation for what BSL actually stands for now. I support Hashicorp's right to make money from their business, but I think these lawyers are in over their head. It doesn't make much sense to me. We'll have to see who gets a license grant from Hashi and how much they're going to pay for it.

candiddevmike 3y ago
Having worked with lawyers on software licensing, and knowing how verbose they are, I'm confident that whoever added the Additional Use Grant in the BSL was not a lawyer and did not get it reviewed by a lawyer. There are no definitions for "hosted", "production use", or "embedded". The plain language definition for these words is not concrete enough and thus the FAQ.
verdverm 3y ago
legal documents refer to other documents for specifics all the time, these are legally binding references
- yebyen 3y ago
  So they just added a new FAQ because their license was unclear, it's got a "last updated" date under every single entry. What assurances do we have that these binding statements won't be changed in the future? It looks as though they have definitely made changes to this page at least 4 times since it was published, in only two weeks. https://www.hashicorp.com/license-faq#future-competitive-products https://www.hashicorp.com/license-faq#future-competitive-pro... If in the future HashiCorp creates an offering then they will exempt me from action under the BSL according to this section. What is the likelihood of this changing later on? What is my recourse if it does? All of these questions, you can ask yourself (and your lawyers, again and again each time) now of any open source project that makes contributors sign a CLA. Since there was nothing stopping HashiCorp from doing this, what will stop others? This is a terrible thing for Open Source IMO. Competition is good, but I understand HashiCorp have some competitors that are leveraging their good will against them and costing them deals. I hope that Hashi don't use this new license to squash their competitors and stamp out Open Source. But I won't take that as foregone conclusion, it's up to HashiCorp how they pursue these changes and up to the rest of us how to react when they do. I've got my fingers crossed for good.
  - fishnchips 3y ago
    > leveraging their good will against them and costing them deals Spacelift co-founder here. I keep seeing this argument, and I'm puzzled. What good will are we talking about, and how are we leveraging it against anyone? Is building a good commercial product that folks love on top of an open source ecosystem somehow unethical? And if so - why? I used every opportunity to try and help Hashi build something better on top of core TF, both personally (applied for a job on their TFE team back in 2018, talked about many ideas that then went into Spacelift instead) and as a company (we tried VERY hard to partner). All to no avail. On the other hand, for 9 years non-Hashi folks (including ourselves here at Spacelift) spent countless hours, for the first years contributing to Terraform core, and more recently when PRs were no longer accepted they were still busy building providers, modules, tooling, courses, tutorials, cheatsheets, they've been running local meetups, all powered by the open source ethos and the common good. Not really sure who is leveraging whose good will here.
    - bcantrill 3y ago
      This is a great comment -- there's a lot of wisdom in here for anyone contemplating repeating Hashi's mistakes!
      - verdverm 3y ago
        We do t know if it was a mistake, only time can answer that. We for one have no impact or intention to stop using Hashi products
        jsjdjd37 3y ago
        [flagged]
    - chaboud 3y ago
      To me, this is the core bait and switch problem. It’s not just that expectations and commitments are suddenly unilaterally changed. Is that the core subject of the license (an open-source codebase) has quite often been built collaboratively with the agreement and contribution of entities outside of the organization unilaterally claiming domain over the underlying work. If this is somehow permissible under the original license, it points to needing licenses that offer more consistency and protection. If I contribute to your project, I want to make sure that you can’t close the door on the codebase whenever you feel that you’ve harvested enough value from me, value that you’re now going to go monetize with others.

by yebyen 3y ago

candiddevmike 3y ago

Having worked with lawyers on software licensing, and knowing how verbose they are, I'm confident that whoever added the Additional Use Grant in the BSL was not a lawyer and did not get it reviewed by a lawyer. There are no definitions for "hosted", "production use", or "embedded". The plain language definition for these words is not concrete enough and thus the FAQ.

verdverm 3y ago

legal documents refer to other documents for specifics all the time, these are legally binding references

yebyen 3y ago
So they just added a new FAQ because their license was unclear, it's got a "last updated" date under every single entry. What assurances do we have that these binding statements won't be changed in the future? It looks as though they have definitely made changes to this page at least 4 times since it was published, in only two weeks. https://www.hashicorp.com/license-faq#future-competitive-products https://www.hashicorp.com/license-faq#future-competitive-pro... If in the future HashiCorp creates an offering then they will exempt me from action under the BSL according to this section. What is the likelihood of this changing later on? What is my recourse if it does? All of these questions, you can ask yourself (and your lawyers, again and again each time) now of any open source project that makes contributors sign a CLA. Since there was nothing stopping HashiCorp from doing this, what will stop others? This is a terrible thing for Open Source IMO. Competition is good, but I understand HashiCorp have some competitors that are leveraging their good will against them and costing them deals. I hope that Hashi don't use this new license to squash their competitors and stamp out Open Source. But I won't take that as foregone conclusion, it's up to HashiCorp how they pursue these changes and up to the rest of us how to react when they do. I've got my fingers crossed for good.
- fishnchips 3y ago
  > leveraging their good will against them and costing them deals Spacelift co-founder here. I keep seeing this argument, and I'm puzzled. What good will are we talking about, and how are we leveraging it against anyone? Is building a good commercial product that folks love on top of an open source ecosystem somehow unethical? And if so - why? I used every opportunity to try and help Hashi build something better on top of core TF, both personally (applied for a job on their TFE team back in 2018, talked about many ideas that then went into Spacelift instead) and as a company (we tried VERY hard to partner). All to no avail. On the other hand, for 9 years non-Hashi folks (including ourselves here at Spacelift) spent countless hours, for the first years contributing to Terraform core, and more recently when PRs were no longer accepted they were still busy building providers, modules, tooling, courses, tutorials, cheatsheets, they've been running local meetups, all powered by the open source ethos and the common good. Not really sure who is leveraging whose good will here.
  - bcantrill 3y ago
    This is a great comment -- there's a lot of wisdom in here for anyone contemplating repeating Hashi's mistakes!
    - verdverm 3y ago
      We do t know if it was a mistake, only time can answer that. We for one have no impact or intention to stop using Hashi products
      - jsjdjd37 3y ago
        [flagged]
  - chaboud 3y ago
    To me, this is the core bait and switch problem. It’s not just that expectations and commitments are suddenly unilaterally changed. Is that the core subject of the license (an open-source codebase) has quite often been built collaboratively with the agreement and contribution of entities outside of the organization unilaterally claiming domain over the underlying work. If this is somehow permissible under the original license, it points to needing licenses that offer more consistency and protection. If I contribute to your project, I want to make sure that you can’t close the door on the codebase whenever you feel that you’ve harvested enough value from me, value that you’re now going to go monetize with others.