6 ms·

It’s absolutely crazy to me that other companies free-ride off of companies like Hashicorp and Mongo’s work and the free-riders are the ones many - particularly

by benced 3y ago

It’s absolutely crazy to me that other companies free-ride off of companies like Hashicorp and Mongo’s work and the free-riders are the ones many - particularly on this site - support.

deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
sverhagen 3y ago
One of the arguments is that there are many non-Hashicorp contributors to Terraform, not to mention the larger ecosystem, who want a say in keeping their work free. This argument is even extended to Hashicorp currently only spending less than a handful of fte's on Terraform maintenance. If you subscribe to those views, you turn the "taking a free ride" argument on its head.
- mborch 3y ago
  I'll add that at the end of the day, a maintainer of open source needs to tend to its garden in order to receive contributions. This is a case of HashiCorp failing to do that on multiple levels (devoting too few resources, changing licenses, etc). So people leave to form new communities and that's only natural.
- charcircuit 3y ago
  Those contributors work will still be free for the rest of time under MPL 2.0. The change now is that new changes will take 4 years until they become MPL 2.0, but until then those new change's source is still available for people to work with, fix bugs, and adapt to their business's needs.
jchw 3y ago
It gets pointed out every time that this is not the case at all. It's not even subtle; it's about open source and the not-so-fine line between protecting your business model versus exploitation. https://lwn.net/Articles/942346/ https://lwn.net/Articles/942346/ Notably, while AGPL is probably not the best license for unrelated reasons, most people do not have any conceptual qualms with the AGPL. I can not say the same for the pretend-open licenses that have been being pushed through with all of the usual excuses. Also, robust open source projects have outside contributors. When you're contributing to an open source project under open license terms, it's mutually beneficial. But why would other companies willingly contribute to closed/shared source projects? What exactly is in it for them? Hence the resources that are being dedicated to OpenTF.
- bb88 3y ago
  > most people do not have any conceptual qualms with the AGPL. Some claim that if AGPL is very toxic, and that even viewing AGPL code might taint any project you work on later. The reasoning goes that if you see something useful in an AGPL project and decide to use it (not copy and paste but actually recode it from scratch), the AGPL license follows that code in your head. It's not dissimilar to a certain argument of patents. The more you read patents the more liability you potentially have in a lawsuit, so literally ignorance is bliss.
  - jchw 3y ago
    > Some claim that if AGPL is very toxic, Google (and other large enterprises) definitely claims this, though honestly I think the main problem with the AGPL is the mechanism by which it works, not necessarily the idea behind it. > and that even viewing AGPL code might taint any project you work on later. Never heard this before. I also have no idea why this would be any different from other potentially-not open source software licenses. > It's not dissimilar to a certain argument of patents. The more you read patents the more liability you potentially have in a lawsuit, so literally ignorance is bliss. For patents I understand why this is the case even if it's not necessarily an ideal situation, but for AGPL it's still just copyright law at play, regardless of what the restrictions are. I don't understand how this differs from other licenses so strongly.
    - bb88 3y ago
      >Never heard this before. I also have no idea why this would be any different from other potentially-not open source software licenses. If code from agpl licensed product is found in a closed source SaaS offering, then the entire SaaS offering must be made open source. Copying can be accomplished through either copy/paste or mental reading and retyping. This is different from BSD where just the copyright notices need to follow the code.
      - jchw 3y ago
        Huh? I am not a lawyer, but I think you have this a bit wrong. It doesn't require that at all. AGPL "virility" is just like GPL virility. If you link to AGPL code, from code that is otherwise compatible with the AGPL, then in order to comply with the AGPL, you need to ship the source code of your entire program, with the same semantics about linking as the GPL. That does NOT at ALL mean you need to ship the entire SaaS offering, just the offending component. It does not include things that communicate with that program over the network. And that's only if that is your choice to remediate the license violation in the first place: if you really "mentally copied" some code, you can have the code in question rewritten. You may be confusing the AGPL with SSPL. MongoDB switched to the SSPL from the AGPL, wherein terms were added that would imply that you essentially do have to open source the entire SaaS offering, not just the components that make up the program. Whether this is even enforceable or not is curious to me, because honestly, it seems dubious: how can a copyright license apply to other copyrighted works arbitrarily that are otherwise unrelated? However, AGPL is even less stringent than it seems. Because it aims to be a copyright license rather than a contract, the AGPL is phrased in such a way that it is not "triggered" unless the code is actually modified[1]: With the AGPL, there are two triggers that both have to occur for the source code sharing requirement to kick in: 1. You’ve modified the program. 2. You make the modified program available to people remotely through a computer network. This is at least in part why the AGPL is arguably not that great, but it's a minor point in the grand scheme of things. [1]: https://fossa.com/blog/oss-license-compliance-expert-heather-meeker-agpl/ https://fossa.com/blog/oss-license-compliance-expert-heather...
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
kstrauser 3y ago
Hashicorp built Terraform on top of other FOSS systems. Other companies built on top of Terraform. And then Hashicorp pulls the rug out. Yeah, I can imagine how those companies are irked, just as Hashicorp would be if Google suddenly made Go proprietary or Linus locked up Linux. How much did HC pay to use Go or Linux? Face it: we all free ride off others’ work, and in turn, they use ours. And look at how much amazing stuff we all have — for free! — because of it.
- pjmlp 3y ago
  Pity that my supermarket doesn't take pull requests.
  - kstrauser 3y ago
    Indeed. I trade favors with my other professional friends all the time: my buddy gives me legal advice, and I audit his security setup. We both win! It’s amazing how nice it is to give and receive quality work without having to swap cash for every little thing.
pjmlp 3y ago
Yes, it is incredible that a site dedicated to startups and creating companies, has so many people that advocate not paying for the work of others, while expecting to be paid for their own work, made possible by such tooling. In that regard our profession is a shame when comparing with other industries.
- kstrauser 3y ago
  How much did you pay for the TCP/IP stack you posted that with? Your web browser? The extensions in it? This website? Everything we do is built on the shoulders of giants. If we’re very lucky, we’ll make something nice that others will want to build upon in turn.
  - pjmlp 3y ago
    I expect Microsoft, IBM, Apple...to have paid whatever is required. As consumer from commercial software, and someone that has paid FOSS developers since the mid-90's, I am quite comfortable doing statements about people abusing other people's work.
    - kstrauser 3y ago
      And OpenTF contributors paid exactly as much as is required.
      - pjmlp 3y ago
        Yeah right, saving this reply for when OpenTF fork also goes commercial in a couple of years, or fades into obscurity as the big defenders fail to keep it going. I will give it 5 years time.
        benterix 3y ago
        Well, we'll see about that. I, for one, can't wait t see the improvements the community has been asking for years.
mikemcquaid 3y ago
It’s crazy to me how many people in the software industry consider abiding by the terms of the software’s license, rather than some moral imperative to do more, to be “free riding”. If Hashicorp wanted to stop “free riding” the solution was and is simple: don’t make Terraform open-source. Open source works well without (much and often any) money involved. Businesses don’t. This is why open source is not an automatic business model. Yours, someone who has spent the last 14 years maintaining a popular open source project mostly without any money and now with some donations.
jsiepkes 3y ago
There is no way Hashicorp would have gotten this level of adoption (and become this big) as they are today if they offered their products in a classic Microsoft, Oracle, etc. pay to license way. Now that they have gotten what they want (get big) they have decided to alter the deal. That upsets people.
kelnos 3y ago
It's not free-riding to use a project under the terms of its license. Users are in no way obligated to pay or contribute back. (I say this as an open source developer myself.) If HashiCorp didn't like that, they should have made TF proprietary in the first place. But of course they didn't do that: they knew that if they'd done so, they would have gotten very little traction. But now that many people and businesses depend on TF, they've decided to change the rules. Pretty scummy.

by benced 3y ago

It’s absolutely crazy to me that other companies free-ride off of companies like Hashicorp and Mongo’s work and the free-riders are the ones many - particularly on this site - support.

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]

sverhagen 3y ago

One of the arguments is that there are many non-Hashicorp contributors to Terraform, not to mention the larger ecosystem, who want a say in keeping their work free. This argument is even extended to Hashicorp currently only spending less than a handful of fte's on Terraform maintenance. If you subscribe to those views, you turn the "taking a free ride" argument on its head.

mborch 3y ago
I'll add that at the end of the day, a maintainer of open source needs to tend to its garden in order to receive contributions. This is a case of HashiCorp failing to do that on multiple levels (devoting too few resources, changing licenses, etc). So people leave to form new communities and that's only natural.
charcircuit 3y ago
Those contributors work will still be free for the rest of time under MPL 2.0. The change now is that new changes will take 4 years until they become MPL 2.0, but until then those new change's source is still available for people to work with, fix bugs, and adapt to their business's needs.

jchw 3y ago

It gets pointed out every time that this is not the case at all. It's not even subtle; it's about open source and the not-so-fine line between protecting your business model versus exploitation. https://lwn.net/Articles/942346/ https://lwn.net/Articles/942346/ Notably, while AGPL is probably not the best license for unrelated reasons, most people do not have any conceptual qualms with the AGPL. I can not say the same for the pretend-open licenses that have been being pushed through with all of the usual excuses. Also, robust open source projects have outside contributors. When you're contributing to an open source project under open license terms, it's mutually beneficial. But why would other companies willingly contribute to closed/shared source projects? What exactly is in it for them? Hence the resources that are being dedicated to OpenTF.

bb88 3y ago
> most people do not have any conceptual qualms with the AGPL. Some claim that if AGPL is very toxic, and that even viewing AGPL code might taint any project you work on later. The reasoning goes that if you see something useful in an AGPL project and decide to use it (not copy and paste but actually recode it from scratch), the AGPL license follows that code in your head. It's not dissimilar to a certain argument of patents. The more you read patents the more liability you potentially have in a lawsuit, so literally ignorance is bliss.
- jchw 3y ago
  > Some claim that if AGPL is very toxic, Google (and other large enterprises) definitely claims this, though honestly I think the main problem with the AGPL is the mechanism by which it works, not necessarily the idea behind it. > and that even viewing AGPL code might taint any project you work on later. Never heard this before. I also have no idea why this would be any different from other potentially-not open source software licenses. > It's not dissimilar to a certain argument of patents. The more you read patents the more liability you potentially have in a lawsuit, so literally ignorance is bliss. For patents I understand why this is the case even if it's not necessarily an ideal situation, but for AGPL it's still just copyright law at play, regardless of what the restrictions are. I don't understand how this differs from other licenses so strongly.
  - bb88 3y ago
    >Never heard this before. I also have no idea why this would be any different from other potentially-not open source software licenses. If code from agpl licensed product is found in a closed source SaaS offering, then the entire SaaS offering must be made open source. Copying can be accomplished through either copy/paste or mental reading and retyping. This is different from BSD where just the copyright notices need to follow the code.
    - jchw 3y ago
      Huh? I am not a lawyer, but I think you have this a bit wrong. It doesn't require that at all. AGPL "virility" is just like GPL virility. If you link to AGPL code, from code that is otherwise compatible with the AGPL, then in order to comply with the AGPL, you need to ship the source code of your entire program, with the same semantics about linking as the GPL. That does NOT at ALL mean you need to ship the entire SaaS offering, just the offending component. It does not include things that communicate with that program over the network. And that's only if that is your choice to remediate the license violation in the first place: if you really "mentally copied" some code, you can have the code in question rewritten. You may be confusing the AGPL with SSPL. MongoDB switched to the SSPL from the AGPL, wherein terms were added that would imply that you essentially do have to open source the entire SaaS offering, not just the components that make up the program. Whether this is even enforceable or not is curious to me, because honestly, it seems dubious: how can a copyright license apply to other copyrighted works arbitrarily that are otherwise unrelated? However, AGPL is even less stringent than it seems. Because it aims to be a copyright license rather than a contract, the AGPL is phrased in such a way that it is not "triggered" unless the code is actually modified[1]: With the AGPL, there are two triggers that both have to occur for the source code sharing requirement to kick in: 1. You’ve modified the program. 2. You make the modified program available to people remotely through a computer network. This is at least in part why the AGPL is arguably not that great, but it's a minor point in the grand scheme of things. [1]: https://fossa.com/blog/oss-license-compliance-expert-heather-meeker-agpl/ https://fossa.com/blog/oss-license-compliance-expert-heather...

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]

kstrauser 3y ago

Hashicorp built Terraform on top of other FOSS systems. Other companies built on top of Terraform. And then Hashicorp pulls the rug out. Yeah, I can imagine how those companies are irked, just as Hashicorp would be if Google suddenly made Go proprietary or Linus locked up Linux. How much did HC pay to use Go or Linux? Face it: we all free ride off others’ work, and in turn, they use ours. And look at how much amazing stuff we all have — for free! — because of it.

pjmlp 3y ago
Pity that my supermarket doesn't take pull requests.
- kstrauser 3y ago
  Indeed. I trade favors with my other professional friends all the time: my buddy gives me legal advice, and I audit his security setup. We both win! It’s amazing how nice it is to give and receive quality work without having to swap cash for every little thing.

pjmlp 3y ago

Yes, it is incredible that a site dedicated to startups and creating companies, has so many people that advocate not paying for the work of others, while expecting to be paid for their own work, made possible by such tooling. In that regard our profession is a shame when comparing with other industries.

kstrauser 3y ago
How much did you pay for the TCP/IP stack you posted that with? Your web browser? The extensions in it? This website? Everything we do is built on the shoulders of giants. If we’re very lucky, we’ll make something nice that others will want to build upon in turn.
- pjmlp 3y ago
  I expect Microsoft, IBM, Apple...to have paid whatever is required. As consumer from commercial software, and someone that has paid FOSS developers since the mid-90's, I am quite comfortable doing statements about people abusing other people's work.
  - kstrauser 3y ago
    And OpenTF contributors paid exactly as much as is required.
    - pjmlp 3y ago
      Yeah right, saving this reply for when OpenTF fork also goes commercial in a couple of years, or fades into obscurity as the big defenders fail to keep it going. I will give it 5 years time.
      - benterix 3y ago
        Well, we'll see about that. I, for one, can't wait t see the improvements the community has been asking for years.

mikemcquaid 3y ago

It’s crazy to me how many people in the software industry consider abiding by the terms of the software’s license, rather than some moral imperative to do more, to be “free riding”. If Hashicorp wanted to stop “free riding” the solution was and is simple: don’t make Terraform open-source. Open source works well without (much and often any) money involved. Businesses don’t. This is why open source is not an automatic business model. Yours, someone who has spent the last 14 years maintaining a popular open source project mostly without any money and now with some donations.

jsiepkes 3y ago

There is no way Hashicorp would have gotten this level of adoption (and become this big) as they are today if they offered their products in a classic Microsoft, Oracle, etc. pay to license way. Now that they have gotten what they want (get big) they have decided to alter the deal. That upsets people.

kelnos 3y ago

It's not free-riding to use a project under the terms of its license. Users are in no way obligated to pay or contribute back. (I say this as an open source developer myself.) If HashiCorp didn't like that, they should have made TF proprietary in the first place. But of course they didn't do that: they knew that if they'd done so, they would have gotten very little traction. But now that many people and businesses depend on TF, they've decided to change the rules. Pretty scummy.