4 ms·

I 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 u

I 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 ago
There 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 ago
  The 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 ago
    This 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 ago
    Yeah, 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.
    - Terretta 3y ago
      > 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. Well, some of it matters: "If you pay close attention, you can hear it: there’s a new lushness in the opening banjo twangs, and an extra beat when she sings the lyric “Just say yes.” But the difference between the 2008 version of Taylor Swift’s “Love Story,” which helped propel Swift to pop stardom, and the 2021 rerelease of that same song is pretty subtle..." "Her hope, it seems, is to override those archival works with these new versions..." "What’s truly different about Swift’s “new” work is the intention behind it, and developments that have brought her to the place to own it." https://time.com/5949979/why-taylor-swift-is-rerecording-old-albums/ https://time.com/5949979/why-taylor-swift-is-rerecording-old... See also: "In an interview with CBS’s Tracy Smith, Swift said that she planned to sidestep Braun by rerecording everything in the songbook that he now owns, meaning all the songs she had released prior to her August 2019 album Lover." "When Swift switched over to Republic Records in the fall of 2018, she negotiated to own the master rights to all the music she creates going forward." "By rerecording her old songbook with Republic Records, she will own the copyright to all of the new recordings." https://www.vox.com/culture/22278732/taylor-swift-re-recording-1989-speak-now-enchanted-mine-master-rights-scooter-braun https://www.vox.com/culture/22278732/taylor-swift-re-recordi... TL;DR: Arguably, re-recording and re-publishing is just a new pull request and commit, but that gets you a new copyright. But technically, it's the performance that has these financial rights, so perhaps this is more like a clean-room re-implementation so you can re-license the binary. :-)
geerlingguy 3y ago
It seems closest to Hudson vs Jenkins split, in terms of community impact / response (though not on the licensing front): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hudson_(software) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hudson_(software) Oracle almost always seems to be involved in these things, but surprisingly not with Terraform :D
arwineap 3y ago
Historically it may be interesting to look at the hudson / jenkins codebases

paxys 3y ago

There 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 ago
The 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 ago
  This 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 ago
  Yeah, 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.
  - Terretta 3y ago
    > 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. Well, some of it matters: "If you pay close attention, you can hear it: there’s a new lushness in the opening banjo twangs, and an extra beat when she sings the lyric “Just say yes.” But the difference between the 2008 version of Taylor Swift’s “Love Story,” which helped propel Swift to pop stardom, and the 2021 rerelease of that same song is pretty subtle..." "Her hope, it seems, is to override those archival works with these new versions..." "What’s truly different about Swift’s “new” work is the intention behind it, and developments that have brought her to the place to own it." https://time.com/5949979/why-taylor-swift-is-rerecording-old-albums/ https://time.com/5949979/why-taylor-swift-is-rerecording-old... See also: "In an interview with CBS’s Tracy Smith, Swift said that she planned to sidestep Braun by rerecording everything in the songbook that he now owns, meaning all the songs she had released prior to her August 2019 album Lover." "When Swift switched over to Republic Records in the fall of 2018, she negotiated to own the master rights to all the music she creates going forward." "By rerecording her old songbook with Republic Records, she will own the copyright to all of the new recordings." https://www.vox.com/culture/22278732/taylor-swift-re-recording-1989-speak-now-enchanted-mine-master-rights-scooter-braun https://www.vox.com/culture/22278732/taylor-swift-re-recordi... TL;DR: Arguably, re-recording and re-publishing is just a new pull request and commit, but that gets you a new copyright. But technically, it's the performance that has these financial rights, so perhaps this is more like a clean-room re-implementation so you can re-license the binary. :-)

geerlingguy 3y ago

It seems closest to Hudson vs Jenkins split, in terms of community impact / response (though not on the licensing front): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hudson_(software) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hudson_(software) Oracle almost always seems to be involved in these things, but surprisingly not with Terraform :D

arwineap 3y ago

Historically it may be interesting to look at the hudson / jenkins codebases