24 ms·
OpenTF repository is now public
- gray_-_wolf 3y agoThey should have go with "terrafork"...
- cube2222 3y agoHey! As many of you asked for, we've finally made the repository public and will continue developing it in public from now on. This took us some time, but you can now read our announcement for more details[0]. Thanks everybody for the support so far, and I welcome you all to interact with the repo, join the discussion, or even contribute. A possibly noteworthy detail as it's been discussed on HN here a bunch, we've settled with the DCO[1] for contributions. Also, happy to answer any questions! [0]: https://opentf.org/fork https://opentf.org/fork [1]: https://developercertificate.org https://developercertificate.org Disclaimer: Work at Spacelift, and currently temporary Technical Lead of the OpenTF Project, until it's committee-steered.
- Foxboron 3y agoAs technical lead for the OpenTF project, how does things like this get merged? https://github.com/opentffoundation/opentf/pull/36/commits https://github.com/opentffoundation/opentf/pull/36/commits
- lucasyvas 3y agoGive them some time to figure out what merge strategy they want to enforce - it was probably overlooked as a repository setting and they probably clicked Merge instead of Squash and Merge by accident.
- Foxboron 3y agoHow does the merge setting solve the complete lack of any useful information in the pull request?
- sanderjd 3y agoYour comments here should go in the textbook for "why people often prefer to work in private for awhile while zeroing in on their processes for a new endeavor". There will always be someone who will gleefully jump down your throat for imperfections. But on balance it's probably better to work in public anyway and ignore the haters (while also continuously improving processes).
- Foxboron 3y agoMost people don't spend this much time on PR before releasing their fork though. If they had worked on this publicly from the start I'm sure a lot of the current PRs would have generally been of better quality as they could get community input earlier.
- sanderjd 3y agoOh I see now! Your comments about the merits of the pull requests are just bad faith; you're actually making this totally different point about the project that has absolutely nothing to do with squashing or commit messages. Thanks for clearing that up.
- razbensimon 3y agoGreat work everybody! Env0 developer here
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- mschuster91 3y agoThanks! I'd ask for two things: The first is, please provide a standalone registry package for both modules and providers - the only I'm aware of is Artifactory, and I don't really feel like running another big repository software in a Nexus shop. The second is related: please allow for easier forking of provider modules. The current workflow of either building locally and distributing binaries with collaborators that are manually copied sucks or waiting for upstream to accept PRs, particularly if upstream wants CLAs signed.
- cube2222 3y agoHey! > The first is, please provide a standalone registry package for both modules and providers - the only I'm aware of is Artifactory, and I don't really feel like running another big repository software in a Nexus shop. Could you expand on this? Do you mean you'd like a self-contained binary to run a private provider/modules registry? If that's the case, then there are some open source projects for that, and we've done a proof of concept of an approach in which you can distribute providers via OCI registries like DockerHub or the GitHub Container Registry[0] as those are actually perfect for the use-case. This PoC will be followed by a public RFC soon. > The second is related: please allow for easier forking of provider modules. The current workflow of either building locally and distributing binaries with collaborators that are manually copied sucks or waiting for upstream to accept PRs, particularly if upstream wants CLAs signed. Do you possibly have an ideal workflow in mind? [0]: https://twitter.com/opentforg/status/1696913055576387599 https://twitter.com/opentforg/status/1696913055576387599 Disclaimer: Work at Spacelift, and currently temporary Technical Lead of the OpenTF Project, until it's committee-steered.
- mschuster91 3y ago> Do you mean you'd like a self-contained binary to run a private provider/modules registry? Yes, indeed. But it seems the problem more was something with Google's algorithm, I swear a month ago this here [1] wasn't on the first page when searching for "terraform private provider registry". That also answered the second question. [1] https://github.com/outsideris/citizen https://github.com/outsideris/citizen
- tuyguntn 3y agowhy only Terraform? for some reason I was under impression that other offerings of HashiCorp will be supported by OpenTF foundation
- Bilal_io 3y agoFrom the name OpenTF (Open Terraform) I assumed it's specific to Terraform
- capableweb 3y agoThe "TF" part could be anything! :) Open Technology Foundation is one suggestion. Backronyms are a thing people.
- joshpadnick 3y agoOpenTF core member from Gruntwork here. All great products require focus, and right now our sole focus for OpenTF is creating the best possible truly open source and community-driven successor to legacy Terraform. I'd personally love to see an open source path forward on other products that Hashicorp re-licensed like Packer, but those will need to be a separate project and initiative.
- merb 3y agoI doubt that there will be such things. Vault for example. Its unlikely that it gets a big backer or will be a cncf project.
- notpushkin 3y agoI think Packer is a reasonable candidate for a CNCF project.
- Pet_Ant 3y agoPresumably this: https://www.cncf.io/ https://www.cncf.io/ Cloud Native Computing Foundation
- andersa 3y agoThis shall serve as a great example for why no reasonable company would ever use a permissive license for their main product again.
- hotstickyballs 3y agoIt should serve as a warning for companies who want to leverage the open source community but then do a rugpull
- ohad1282 3y agoI think it is reasonable for a company to start OSS and then change its license. But it indeed feels like a rugpull for all the contributors. That is why OpenTF is on its way to CNCF. To ensure it stays OSS forever. There is a difference between "true OSS" like K8s, OPA, etc and "temporary OSS" (backed by a company) like what Terraform used to be, Pulumi, GitLab ,etc. Those can be changed in the future. When developers chose OSS, they should consider if it is a CNCF OSS or a vendor backed OSS. What Hashi did is an important example. (disclaimer - env0 founder here, co-lead the OpenTF initiative)
- AaronFriel 3y ago> Pulumi is true open source, uses the Apache 2.0 license, and does not and never will depend on BSL-licensed software in any way, HashiCorp owned or otherwise. https://www.pulumi.com/blog/pulumi-hearts-opensource/ https://www.pulumi.com/blog/pulumi-hearts-opensource/ Disclaimer: the following is my own opinion as an engineer at Pulumi. Pulumi is true open source, with a relationship similar to git and the many SaaS services that layer on top of git to provide meaningful value. To contrast with our competitor, Pulumi relies on open source languages and protocols. We could not, even if we wanted to, change the Python license. Nor could we change our protocols without breaking our users and our growing ecosystem. That's the value of building on open protocols and standard languages.
- ohad1282 3y ago
- chologrande 3y agoI'm just skimming, but it looks like the docs are fantastic. I've spent some time with terraform internals, and this seems like a significant improvement for a dev looking to work with this codebase. Gives a great overview to get started. well done!
- cube2222 3y agoI'm not sure which docs you mean specifically, but most of the docs are fairly unchanged (other than trademark stuff) from the original repo, so if any of the docs improved, then to give credit where credit's due, the kudos should go to the Terraform Core devs. Disclaimer: Work at Spacelift, and currently temporary Technical Lead of the OpenTF Project, until it's committee-steered.
- chologrande 3y agowow I can't facepalm any harder, I hadn't seen the architecture docs etc in the top level repo... and they're at the top level.
- thecosmicfrog 3y ago> We're consulting with a couple of legal experts regarding the name, and it seems that even OpenTF won't be the final name due to use of "TF" in it. Interesting that having "TF" in the name could cause issues. Source: https://github.com/opentffoundation/opentf/issues/273#issuecomment-1706947318 https://github.com/opentffoundation/opentf/issues/273#issuec...
- sluongng 3y agoIsn't Tensorflow logo "TF"?
- jonfw 3y agoTensorflow isn't a direct competitor. My understanding (and I am not a lawyer) is that enforcing trademarks is based around whether or not a consumer could reasonably confuse the product with the trademark owners. A user wouldn't reasonably confuse tensorflow with terraform, but might confuse openTF with terraform
- blowski 3y agoTensorflow isn’t competing with TerraForm.
- capableweb 3y agoI'm guessing the issue is that it's obviously "inspired" by "Terraform" which shorthand is TF. My second guess is that using "Open" together with something that implies "Terraform" is also a problem, as Hashicorp might sue them for defamation, as that name would imply that Terraform is not "Open". I'm not personally against that, I wouldn't consider Terraform "Open" anymore, but I'm not sure a court would see it the same way.
- toyg 3y agoThe criteria for trademarks is not defamation, but confusion. Given a product TerraForm, known also as TF, how likely is it that a consumer would be confused into thinking "OpenTF" is made by the same people who make TF? That's the bar to clear. In the past, some trademark owners have been fairly lax, allowing unrelated "Open" versions of their software to be established. The classic case was "SUN OpenOffice", but I suspect they got away with it because "office" was not a wordmark - the trademark was for "Microsoft Office", which is very different. In a lot of cases, the "Open" versions emerged once the software was not sold anymore, so it was impossible to be confused. In this case, though, the software is still sold and likely carries trademarks and wordmarks. Unless OpenTF's pockets are deep enough for some serious lawyerin', it will be easier to rebrand.
- dzogchen 3y agohttps://www.isopentfopenyet.dev/ https://www.isopentfopenyet.dev/ is out of date! You had one job!
- MuffinFlavored 3y agoDoes anybody have a diff of what this code base looks like compared to the latest "good acceptable ok to keep using" Terraform license commit? I guess I don't really understand what had to be changed given the new license debacle/changes.
- fishnchips 3y agoGitHub has this "compare" functionality - this gives you a diff between where we forked and the current "main" - https://github.com/opentffoundation/opentf/compare/8a085b427b74ce3829500a59508b77465f1bbef0...a7d8cdd3eeaac968765c6819222606add3720ecf https://github.com/opentffoundation/opentf/compare/8a085b427...
- _joel 3y agoGood to see, waiting on https://github.com/opentffoundation/roadmap/issues/8 https://github.com/opentffoundation/roadmap/issues/8 so can do some testing (yes can build from source, but I'd rather use the releases)
- bastardoperator 3y agoNice, on a total side tangent, the logo looks fairly awkward in dark blue against a dark background. The white stroke also isn't bold enough so it looks very pixelated when also combined with a dark background.
- dentalperson 3y agoDefinitely bikeshedding, but it also kind of looks like the TensorFlow logo and for a second I thought there was a group breaking the project free from Google.
- galenmarchetti 3y agoI think this whole process has been beautiful. Hashicorp was well aware that licenses are tagged to versions of projects rather than the "project" itself, and used that to its advantage as a business to start maximizing profits to its enterprise offerings. The community was well aware that once you tag a license to a version, you can't undo that. And they're well aware that they can fork from that license forwards and build their own "new" project, version by version, that stays open source. This is going to be fascinating to see play out, and I think a case study in software licensing going forwards...can't wait to see how OpenTF does down the road.
- paxys 3y agoThere is no distinction between licenses tagged to "versions of projects" (whatever that means) vs the project itself. Hashicorp was well within their rights to change the license moving forward, and you or I or anyone else are within their rights to continue using an older version and fork it – which is exactly what happened here.
- hiatus 3y agoThe fact that you can continue to use an older version and fork it supports your parent's statement that the license is tied to a specific version. The new license only affects newer versions and can't be retroactively applied.
- paxys 3y agoThis is how all copyright and licensing works. There's nothing unique about Terraform. You can't go back and retroactively take away a permission that you granted someone.
- paulddraper 3y agoYeah, but that's a weird way to put it. Meaningless truism. Copyrights are never not tied to a "version." There is no concept of "version." Copyright applies to a bunch of data. You have a copyright on a song. If you create a second song you can call it a new "version" of the original or not, none of this matters for copyright.
- nexawave-ai 3y ago[flagged]
- managingahhs 3y agoCan Terraform become a CNCF project itself and that be the foundation it's tied to?
- lijok 3y agoUnlikely to get accepted by CNCF (I would think). There's big movement by the cloud vendors to create IAC-first APIs. Once those APIs gain traction and the industry as a whole signals that that's the direction to go, we'll see a standard emerge, and a new general purpose tool get built that will replace Terraform and all of its providers. That's a few years away however, assuming that effort doesn't die down.
- paulddraper 3y agoWhy can't that tool be terraform?
- wkat4242 3y agoOpen TeamFortress?
- kookamamie 3y agoThe logo on the Github page could do with an improvement on dark backgrounds - specifically, the dark text has a light outline (alpha bleed?) which aliases.