3 ms·

I wasn't talking about you at all. And I honestly haven't followed the conversation you (SpaceLift in particular) may have been having with Hashi or not, though

by yebyen 3y ago

I wasn't talking about you at all. And I honestly haven't followed the conversation you (SpaceLift in particular) may have been having with Hashi or not, though I am absolutely aware of and maybe even in the same boat as you. I think this is an issue between Hashi and some V.V.large players, I suspect that there are big companies who are selling deals that say they "support Terraform" when they aren't actually building it or supplying labor to Terraform as a code project in any meaningful way. But they derive value from a pledge in their real big money contracts to "support Terraform" which in reality costs them nothing except that they will have had to accept the license terms, clearly, whatever they are at that time. They sell licenses to major (even government) institutions and Hashi OSS might be used as part of the solution, but Hashi aren't getting a cut of the deal. Let's say. I think those big companies want to have Terraform support with a capital T, and it would diminish their marks substantially to switch streams now and edge out Hashi, the smaller player (who is actually doing all of the work), by supporting OpenTF – separating them from ongoing development efforts of HashiCorp who undoubtedly are expending some significant labor to make and maintain Terraform itself. But I don't think it's right for Open Source companies to pull the rug on other companies that have built successful products on them. I think the best outcome possible for Spacelift and companies like it now is the OpenTF route (assuming you can't get a suitably proper BUSL license grant from HashiCorp, which it seems like you might if you get them to declare you "not a competitor" even once, according to the FAQ as it reads today. IANAL.) I think you're using the MPL software as the license was designed, and your company should be able to deliver Terraform with additional value provided through the interface and the scaffolding (eg. better Terraform Cloud) that you built around it, and charge money for it. But of course I'm not the lawyer. I am very glad to meet you here though!

dwaite 3y ago
> I think the best outcome possible for Spacelift and companies like it now is the OpenTF route (assuming you can't get a suitably proper BUSL license grant from HashiCorp, which it seems like you might if you get them to declare you "not a competitor" even once, according to the FAQ as it reads today. IANAL.) IANAL as well, but this sounds like a HUGE trap. Will that protect you from their next licensing change and its restrictions? Is such a declaration transferrable? Would it limit Spacelift's exit strategies because they would be unable to ship their product if acquired? If there is a community where the new licensing terms no longer meet people's needs, then something like OpenTF is absolutely the right way to go. Anything else, and your company is operating by the grace of Hashi.
- yebyen 3y ago
  > your company is operating by the grace of Hashi Well unless TF competitors were prepared to go off and build their own (OpenTF) it's as you say anyway, Terraform doesn't just spring into existence without Hashi building it first. If you are building on it, then you have it to build upon because they built it first. License changes notwithstanding, if the ongoing efforts of HashiCorp today are worth anything to you, then it's to your advantage to go on supporting TF with a capital T and disregard the fork. But if you think they will try to extract more than their contribution is worth from you, then the choice is clear...ish. How much will it cost you to form and maintain the fork? It's a tough calculation. Will you derive more benefit from the partnership with Hashi (assuming they're amenable to forming one) or will you derive more benefit from the ownership associated with building your own OpenTF? How much will it cost? Must be all companies with a Terraform arm are doing this calculus right now, trying to figure out if there is a "support both" option they can live with, or otherwise if they're going to have to pick one, how to not pick the loser. I understand that for some companies the calculus may be obvious and the choices clear. If your entire business depends on Terraform, then accepting all the terms might as well be tantamount to accepting a full buyout without any price tag. It's a pretty big no-brainer of a "no deal!" but on the other hand if you are VMWare or RedHat and you need for your contracts to support Terraform with a capital T... I think it's those companies who can't just say "we support the fork" and move on with business as usual, without taking a big hit to the credibility of their support promises. Will they actually participate in a fork, if they say they support a fork? (Will you welcome them with open arms, or skepticism? What if it turns out that their under-participation in the Terraform ecosystem of yesteryore is the actual reason we are in this position now? Again, speculating...) What does that signal about their commitment to the tech if they do follow the fork, and what does it mean for their big clients who might have already cut some deals with Hashicorp on their own... and can one even support both without putting oneself in a precarious legal position?

by yebyen 3y ago

dwaite 3y ago

> I think the best outcome possible for Spacelift and companies like it now is the OpenTF route (assuming you can't get a suitably proper BUSL license grant from HashiCorp, which it seems like you might if you get them to declare you "not a competitor" even once, according to the FAQ as it reads today. IANAL.) IANAL as well, but this sounds like a HUGE trap. Will that protect you from their next licensing change and its restrictions? Is such a declaration transferrable? Would it limit Spacelift's exit strategies because they would be unable to ship their product if acquired? If there is a community where the new licensing terms no longer meet people's needs, then something like OpenTF is absolutely the right way to go. Anything else, and your company is operating by the grace of Hashi.

yebyen 3y ago
> your company is operating by the grace of Hashi Well unless TF competitors were prepared to go off and build their own (OpenTF) it's as you say anyway, Terraform doesn't just spring into existence without Hashi building it first. If you are building on it, then you have it to build upon because they built it first. License changes notwithstanding, if the ongoing efforts of HashiCorp today are worth anything to you, then it's to your advantage to go on supporting TF with a capital T and disregard the fork. But if you think they will try to extract more than their contribution is worth from you, then the choice is clear...ish. How much will it cost you to form and maintain the fork? It's a tough calculation. Will you derive more benefit from the partnership with Hashi (assuming they're amenable to forming one) or will you derive more benefit from the ownership associated with building your own OpenTF? How much will it cost? Must be all companies with a Terraform arm are doing this calculus right now, trying to figure out if there is a "support both" option they can live with, or otherwise if they're going to have to pick one, how to not pick the loser. I understand that for some companies the calculus may be obvious and the choices clear. If your entire business depends on Terraform, then accepting all the terms might as well be tantamount to accepting a full buyout without any price tag. It's a pretty big no-brainer of a "no deal!" but on the other hand if you are VMWare or RedHat and you need for your contracts to support Terraform with a capital T... I think it's those companies who can't just say "we support the fork" and move on with business as usual, without taking a big hit to the credibility of their support promises. Will they actually participate in a fork, if they say they support a fork? (Will you welcome them with open arms, or skepticism? What if it turns out that their under-participation in the Terraform ecosystem of yesteryore is the actual reason we are in this position now? Again, speculating...) What does that signal about their commitment to the tech if they do follow the fork, and what does it mean for their big clients who might have already cut some deals with Hashicorp on their own... and can one even support both without putting oneself in a precarious legal position?