3 ms·

No immediate change with regards to how the plugins are handled. Longer term I think the entire plugin ecosystem could benefit from less centralized control, in

No immediate change with regards to how the plugins are handled. Longer term I think the entire plugin ecosystem could benefit from less centralized control, in the interest of all other projects that depend on it (eg. Pulumi, Crossplane etc). As OpenTF we are already working with other parties interested in keeping the ecosystem in good shape. But for now there's no change necessary, since the TF registry seems itself to just be a lightweight proxy to GitHub Packages, they don't seem to host anything themselves. (Marcin, co-founder of Spacelift, and one of the members of the OpenTF initiative)

janosdebugs 3y ago
I think this should be addressed sooner rather than later. A lot of core plugins (e.g. AWS) are written by HashiCorp themselves and the license could be changed at any time, putting OpenTF users in danger of violating the license. Furthermore, to publish a provider one needs a HashiCorp account and agree to their Terms of Service.
- wlonkly 3y ago
  I was under the impression that a lot of the cloud provider plugins were developed in close collaboration with, or even by, the cloud providers themselves. At a glance, three of the top four contributors to the AWS provider are from outside of Hashicorp, and two of those three are AWS employees.
  - janosdebugs 3y ago
    You may be right on that one, but they still have copyright headers like this: # Copyright (c) HashiCorp, Inc. # SPDX-License-Identifier: MPL-2.0 This is enforced by a GitHub Actions check on every PR.
- fishnchips 3y ago
  > agree to their Terms of Service Thanks for the insight. I think it wouldn't hurt to have an open registry at some point, but we will need to figure out the governance model for that as part of the foundation.
  - janosdebugs 3y ago
    Good luck! Governance is always one of the harder problems when setting up a project. Maybe the CNCF could actually help already, given the high profile nature of Terraform? I also have a few projects we set up governance for, but I don't think those would fit OpenTF as they were made for smaller projects.

janosdebugs 3y ago

I think this should be addressed sooner rather than later. A lot of core plugins (e.g. AWS) are written by HashiCorp themselves and the license could be changed at any time, putting OpenTF users in danger of violating the license. Furthermore, to publish a provider one needs a HashiCorp account and agree to their Terms of Service.

wlonkly 3y ago
I was under the impression that a lot of the cloud provider plugins were developed in close collaboration with, or even by, the cloud providers themselves. At a glance, three of the top four contributors to the AWS provider are from outside of Hashicorp, and two of those three are AWS employees.
- janosdebugs 3y ago
  You may be right on that one, but they still have copyright headers like this: # Copyright (c) HashiCorp, Inc. # SPDX-License-Identifier: MPL-2.0 This is enforced by a GitHub Actions check on every PR.
fishnchips 3y ago
> agree to their Terms of Service Thanks for the insight. I think it wouldn't hurt to have an open registry at some point, but we will need to figure out the governance model for that as part of the foundation.
- janosdebugs 3y ago
  Good luck! Governance is always one of the harder problems when setting up a project. Maybe the CNCF could actually help already, given the high profile nature of Terraform? I also have a few projects we set up governance for, but I don't think those would fit OpenTF as they were made for smaller projects.