5 ms·

> That being said, after HashiCorp’s CTO released “binding” answers to some of these FAQs, it seems clear that the only folks who this affects are those that se

> That being said, after HashiCorp’s CTO released “binding” answers to some of these FAQs, it seems clear that the only folks who this affects are those that sell software to other companies. I’m not so sure about this. The Licensing FAQ doesn’t have the full legal weight of an update or addendum to the actual license. There’s no guarantee that they won’t renege these “binding” answers next year, and unlike the license agreement my company isn’t agreeing to them as terms of use.

hodgesrm 3y ago
If they are binding why not add them to the license? Rights for GPLv2, Apache 2.0, etc., are defined in one place. That's one of the main strengths of those agreements.
yankput 3y ago
Yeah, some FAQ on some random site doesn’t constitute a license
- charcircuit 3y ago
  hashicorp.com is not a random site. While an FAQ does not necessarily constitute a license, this FAQ Hashicorp is binding so it becomes an extention of it.
  - jclulow 3y ago
    Why don't they just whack it straight in the licence text then?
    - charcircuit 3y ago
      It is via a hyperlink. https://www.hashicorp.com/bsl https://www.hashicorp.com/bsl
      - placatedmayhem 3y ago
        The FAQ link is not reflected in the actual BSL text, nor is the content of the FAQ included: https://raw.githubusercontent.com/hashicorp/terraform/main/LICENSE https://raw.githubusercontent.com/hashicorp/terraform/main/L...
  - lmm 3y ago
    How exactly are we assured that it is "binding"? That FAQ says "we view the guidance in these FAQs as binding", but what guarantee is there that that "view" won't change in the future as they become more hard pressed for cash?
    - justaj 3y ago
      Wouldn't it be possible to make an archive.is or wayback machine archive out of that page and refer it once a dispute arises?
      - CameronNemo 3y ago
        Why would that help? The license is the license. Hashicorp can just say their previous lawyers were mistaken in their interpretation.
        justaj 3y ago
        Because if it says so on their website (especially if it also says that it's binding), then they have it in writing and you can use that as evidence. Otherwise everyone could just make and sign contracts and go back to them claiming that their lawyers were mistaken in their interpretations of them, no?
        CameronNemo 3y ago
        I don't understand what you're saying. That second sentence has a lot of pronouns.
        everforward 3y ago
        The operative issue is likely that there is no agreement here. Hashicorp did not provide those statements as part of the agreement, and you were not presented those terms as part of the agreement, so why would they be construed as part of the agreement? Just as a corollary, do you think it would still be actually binding if Hashicorp put punitive clauses in there? E.g. "violations of any of these terms will be subject to a 10% of revenue penalty". Are you still bound by that, even though it wasn't part of the agreement? > Otherwise everyone could just make and sign contracts and go back to them claiming that their lawyers were mistaken in their interpretations of them, no? That's kind of the point of the formal agreements. By putting it in the agreement, their lawyers are saying "this text says what we intend" and by agreeing to it you're saying "the terms in this text are acceptable", and then the whole thing is immutable unless both parties come to an agreement again. That's the special space contracts enable. Everyone knows that they're proposing or agreeing to legally binding obligations and can treat it thusly. Slapping random bits of text around and saying they're legally binding is a mess because who knows if you've seen it, or when they'll change it, and whether you'll see any updates to it before you agree to another contract. It's either in the contract and binding, or not in the contract and not legally binding. Hashicorp can choose to bind themselves however they want, but the only entity enforcing those terms is Hashicorp itself.
charcircuit 3y ago
>doesn’t have the full legal weight of an update or addendum to the actual license. They, as the copyright owner, have said it is binding. >There’s no guarantee that they won’t renege these “binding” answers next year Next year they could changed the license entirely if they wanted to.
- jsiepkes 3y ago
  > Next year they could changed the license entirely if they wanted to. Changing the licence can't be done retroactively by Hashicorp. Changing the interpretation of the licence can be done retroactively by Hashicorp.
- jchw 3y ago
  > Next year they could changed the license entirely if they wanted to. Yeah, that's kind of the problem in the first place. It seems as though open source projects with CLAs are just future closed source projects.

hodgesrm 3y ago

If they are binding why not add them to the license? Rights for GPLv2, Apache 2.0, etc., are defined in one place. That's one of the main strengths of those agreements.

yankput 3y ago

Yeah, some FAQ on some random site doesn’t constitute a license

charcircuit 3y ago
hashicorp.com is not a random site. While an FAQ does not necessarily constitute a license, this FAQ Hashicorp is binding so it becomes an extention of it.
- jclulow 3y ago
  Why don't they just whack it straight in the licence text then?
  - charcircuit 3y ago
    It is via a hyperlink. https://www.hashicorp.com/bsl https://www.hashicorp.com/bsl
    - placatedmayhem 3y ago
      The FAQ link is not reflected in the actual BSL text, nor is the content of the FAQ included: https://raw.githubusercontent.com/hashicorp/terraform/main/LICENSE https://raw.githubusercontent.com/hashicorp/terraform/main/L...
- lmm 3y ago
  How exactly are we assured that it is "binding"? That FAQ says "we view the guidance in these FAQs as binding", but what guarantee is there that that "view" won't change in the future as they become more hard pressed for cash?
  - justaj 3y ago
    Wouldn't it be possible to make an archive.is or wayback machine archive out of that page and refer it once a dispute arises?
    - CameronNemo 3y ago
      Why would that help? The license is the license. Hashicorp can just say their previous lawyers were mistaken in their interpretation.
      - justaj 3y ago
        Because if it says so on their website (especially if it also says that it's binding), then they have it in writing and you can use that as evidence. Otherwise everyone could just make and sign contracts and go back to them claiming that their lawyers were mistaken in their interpretations of them, no?
        CameronNemo 3y ago
        I don't understand what you're saying. That second sentence has a lot of pronouns.
        everforward 3y ago
        The operative issue is likely that there is no agreement here. Hashicorp did not provide those statements as part of the agreement, and you were not presented those terms as part of the agreement, so why would they be construed as part of the agreement? Just as a corollary, do you think it would still be actually binding if Hashicorp put punitive clauses in there? E.g. "violations of any of these terms will be subject to a 10% of revenue penalty". Are you still bound by that, even though it wasn't part of the agreement? > Otherwise everyone could just make and sign contracts and go back to them claiming that their lawyers were mistaken in their interpretations of them, no? That's kind of the point of the formal agreements. By putting it in the agreement, their lawyers are saying "this text says what we intend" and by agreeing to it you're saying "the terms in this text are acceptable", and then the whole thing is immutable unless both parties come to an agreement again. That's the special space contracts enable. Everyone knows that they're proposing or agreeing to legally binding obligations and can treat it thusly. Slapping random bits of text around and saying they're legally binding is a mess because who knows if you've seen it, or when they'll change it, and whether you'll see any updates to it before you agree to another contract. It's either in the contract and binding, or not in the contract and not legally binding. Hashicorp can choose to bind themselves however they want, but the only entity enforcing those terms is Hashicorp itself.

charcircuit 3y ago

>doesn’t have the full legal weight of an update or addendum to the actual license. They, as the copyright owner, have said it is binding. >There’s no guarantee that they won’t renege these “binding” answers next year Next year they could changed the license entirely if they wanted to.

jsiepkes 3y ago
> Next year they could changed the license entirely if they wanted to. Changing the licence can't be done retroactively by Hashicorp. Changing the interpretation of the licence can be done retroactively by Hashicorp.
jchw 3y ago
> Next year they could changed the license entirely if they wanted to. Yeah, that's kind of the problem in the first place. It seems as though open source projects with CLAs are just future closed source projects.