4 ms·

the irony is that most people affected by this change have business licenses applied to their products....

fishnchips 3y ago
So does Hashi! They have closed-source products like Terraform Cloud, and nobody's crying foul here. There's nothing wrong IMO with starting a project with a commercial license if you intend to build a business. The community outrage is mainly directed at the bait-and-switch scheme from a company that was praising the FOSS model left, right and center even earlier this year until they've suddenly changed their mind entirely
- jhoelzel 3y ago
  but bait and switch would entail that its a) either no longer open source or b) no longer usable you simply should not be able to make money of it without giving back to the original source owners. It makes me wonder how many FOS projects might still be in full swing if we actually gave some of the value back we generated too
  - fishnchips 3y ago
    What does "giving back" mean? [edit] And yes, it's no longer open source. BUSL is not an open-source license.
    - jhoelzel 3y ago
      yes it is. its just not a "do what you please with it" license, but you can still see and modify the source to your own liking
      - fishnchips 3y ago
        Even Hashi no longer considers it an open-source license. What other argument do you need?
        jhoelzel 3y ago
        > 3. What are the implications of this change for end users of HashiCorp’s open source products? > For end users who are using HashiCorp’s current open source products and new releases using the BSL license for their internal or personal usage, there is no change. Source: https://www.hashicorp.com/license-faq#implications-of-change-for-users https://www.hashicorp.com/license-faq#implications-of-change...
        _msw_ 3y ago
        > 19. How does HashiCorp now refer to the freely available versions of products that were formerly known as open source (or OSS)? > We have referred to versions of our products as either open source (OSS), Enterprise, or Cloud. Going forward, we will refer to the open, freely available versions as “community”. The BSL license is open, free, and source-available. However, it does not meet the definition of open source as defined by OSI, and that is why we will refer to the products as the "community" edition rather than the "open source" edition as we did previously. There are many references to open source on our websites and we are actively working to clarify these language changes in the coming weeks Source: https://www.hashicorp.com/license-faq#details-on-nomenclature https://www.hashicorp.com/license-faq#details-on-nomenclatur...
        jhoelzel 3y ago
        fine i will split the hair with you. Where is source available not good enough for the things that regular orgs do with terraform (or other products) right now. What really is changing in the way you or even developers of provisioners handle the software?
        growse 3y ago
        You can't use the bsl licensed version if you're at all concerned that Hashicorp might decide at any point in the future that your business "competes" with theirs. It's not about the source code. It's about the freedom.

So does Hashi! They have closed-source products like Terraform Cloud, and nobody's crying foul here. There's nothing wrong IMO with starting a project with a commercial license if you intend to build a business. The community outrage is mainly directed at the bait-and-switch scheme from a company that was praising the FOSS model left, right and center even earlier this year until they've suddenly changed their mind entirely

jhoelzel 3y ago
but bait and switch would entail that its a) either no longer open source or b) no longer usable you simply should not be able to make money of it without giving back to the original source owners. It makes me wonder how many FOS projects might still be in full swing if we actually gave some of the value back we generated too
- fishnchips 3y ago
  What does "giving back" mean? [edit] And yes, it's no longer open source. BUSL is not an open-source license.
  - jhoelzel 3y ago
    yes it is. its just not a "do what you please with it" license, but you can still see and modify the source to your own liking
    - fishnchips 3y ago
      Even Hashi no longer considers it an open-source license. What other argument do you need?
      - jhoelzel 3y ago
        > 3. What are the implications of this change for end users of HashiCorp’s open source products? > For end users who are using HashiCorp’s current open source products and new releases using the BSL license for their internal or personal usage, there is no change. Source: https://www.hashicorp.com/license-faq#implications-of-change-for-users https://www.hashicorp.com/license-faq#implications-of-change...
        _msw_ 3y ago
        > 19. How does HashiCorp now refer to the freely available versions of products that were formerly known as open source (or OSS)? > We have referred to versions of our products as either open source (OSS), Enterprise, or Cloud. Going forward, we will refer to the open, freely available versions as “community”. The BSL license is open, free, and source-available. However, it does not meet the definition of open source as defined by OSI, and that is why we will refer to the products as the "community" edition rather than the "open source" edition as we did previously. There are many references to open source on our websites and we are actively working to clarify these language changes in the coming weeks Source: https://www.hashicorp.com/license-faq#details-on-nomenclature https://www.hashicorp.com/license-faq#details-on-nomenclatur...
        jhoelzel 3y ago
        fine i will split the hair with you. Where is source available not good enough for the things that regular orgs do with terraform (or other products) right now. What really is changing in the way you or even developers of provisioners handle the software?
        growse 3y ago
        You can't use the bsl licensed version if you're at all concerned that Hashicorp might decide at any point in the future that your business "competes" with theirs. It's not about the source code. It's about the freedom.