4 ms·

If they started out openly proprietary, they wouldn't have got the same level of contributions from people outside the organisation, and wouldn't have reached t

If they started out openly proprietary, they wouldn't have got the same level of contributions from people outside the organisation, and wouldn't have reached the current popularity. Hashicorp did it the right way round. Open source, friendly, rug pull, profit, obsolete, forgotten.

galenmarchetti 3y ago
haha...fair point! One thing that I've been curious to see, and not sure if anyone has done it yet, is a quantification of contribution to Terraform, comparing amount of work done from external contributors to the work done by Hashicorp-internal contributors. I know it's hard to make the comparison of what is "harder" work or "more" work in a software project from looking at commits alone, but would be interesting to see nonetheless.
- tux1968 3y ago
  It's not just the work donated via the open source channel, it's also the associated credibility, enthusiastic coverage and referrals, and general good will, that accrues to such a project. None of which they would have enjoyed had they been a private project.
  - galenmarchetti 3y ago
    definitely...and they get to keep that credibility and coverage. at least, as long as this move didn't totally alienate the folks that got on terraform back then
    - zaphar 3y ago
      That credibility largely only applies to a certain group of people. The license change tanked that credibility with that group of people. Hashicorp did a classic misstep for open source based companies and as a may have lost the mindshare and marketshare for one of their most significant offerings. I'm actually not sure they'll survive this.
      - chii 3y ago
        > The license change tanked that credibility with that group of people tho a separate group of people who actually decide the finances of companies will not be in this same group. As old saying goes, "Nobody Gets Fired For Buying IBM".
        zaphar 3y ago
        When a senior engineer comes to that person and says. You can stop paying hashicorp money. We found a free alternative and are no longer using their product. That person will happily and joyfully jettison the contract. I've been that senior engineer before and the CTO and CFO have never pushed back on the idea that they don't have to spend any more money. Especially now when cutting costs is a concern everyone is being forced to care about.
  - thayne 3y ago
    Also third party providers and modules.
yyyk 3y ago
>Hashicorp did it the right way round. Open source, friendly, rug pull, profit, obsolete, forgotten. Not entirely. If they were cleverer about this, the open source fork would not have been so viable. Perhaps they didn't consider people would fork?
- thatcherthorn 3y ago
  Interested in this clever tactic you speak of
  - cjbgkagh 3y ago
    Salami slicing tactics are pretty common, that way you can gaslight detractors by saying they’re crazy for making a fuss over such insignificant changes.
  - nunez 3y ago
    Make your code open-source, but don't merge in PRs, don't actually use it for development, and don't promise anything buildable. (NetApp, Tesla, Samsung do this) OR have the core of your tool be open-source but add proprietary value on top of it so that the proprietary version is more attractive (like Tailscale with their Coordination Server). With Terraform, this could have been the cores that manage plans and state. The issue here (purely unsubstantiated outsider opinion) is that Mitchell is a hacker that created things that were immensely valuable and punted the profit part of it for later. Hard to undo that, but it was good enough to raise millions on millions and create a super sweet company to work for (before they went public and were forced to wear a suit like the rest of The Street)
    - jameshilliard 3y ago
      > Tesla Yeah, so Tesla AFAIU isn't even GPL compliant as what they publish is not the complete corresponding source code for their Linux/buildroot based firmware.
  - deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]

galenmarchetti 3y ago

haha...fair point! One thing that I've been curious to see, and not sure if anyone has done it yet, is a quantification of contribution to Terraform, comparing amount of work done from external contributors to the work done by Hashicorp-internal contributors. I know it's hard to make the comparison of what is "harder" work or "more" work in a software project from looking at commits alone, but would be interesting to see nonetheless.

tux1968 3y ago
It's not just the work donated via the open source channel, it's also the associated credibility, enthusiastic coverage and referrals, and general good will, that accrues to such a project. None of which they would have enjoyed had they been a private project.
- galenmarchetti 3y ago
  definitely...and they get to keep that credibility and coverage. at least, as long as this move didn't totally alienate the folks that got on terraform back then
  - zaphar 3y ago
    That credibility largely only applies to a certain group of people. The license change tanked that credibility with that group of people. Hashicorp did a classic misstep for open source based companies and as a may have lost the mindshare and marketshare for one of their most significant offerings. I'm actually not sure they'll survive this.
    - chii 3y ago
      > The license change tanked that credibility with that group of people tho a separate group of people who actually decide the finances of companies will not be in this same group. As old saying goes, "Nobody Gets Fired For Buying IBM".
      - zaphar 3y ago
        When a senior engineer comes to that person and says. You can stop paying hashicorp money. We found a free alternative and are no longer using their product. That person will happily and joyfully jettison the contract. I've been that senior engineer before and the CTO and CFO have never pushed back on the idea that they don't have to spend any more money. Especially now when cutting costs is a concern everyone is being forced to care about.
- thayne 3y ago
  Also third party providers and modules.

yyyk 3y ago

>Hashicorp did it the right way round. Open source, friendly, rug pull, profit, obsolete, forgotten. Not entirely. If they were cleverer about this, the open source fork would not have been so viable. Perhaps they didn't consider people would fork?

thatcherthorn 3y ago
Interested in this clever tactic you speak of
- cjbgkagh 3y ago
  Salami slicing tactics are pretty common, that way you can gaslight detractors by saying they’re crazy for making a fuss over such insignificant changes.
- nunez 3y ago
  Make your code open-source, but don't merge in PRs, don't actually use it for development, and don't promise anything buildable. (NetApp, Tesla, Samsung do this) OR have the core of your tool be open-source but add proprietary value on top of it so that the proprietary version is more attractive (like Tailscale with their Coordination Server). With Terraform, this could have been the cores that manage plans and state. The issue here (purely unsubstantiated outsider opinion) is that Mitchell is a hacker that created things that were immensely valuable and punted the profit part of it for later. Hard to undo that, but it was good enough to raise millions on millions and create a super sweet company to work for (before they went public and were forced to wear a suit like the rest of The Street)
  - jameshilliard 3y ago
    > Tesla Yeah, so Tesla AFAIU isn't even GPL compliant as what they publish is not the complete corresponding source code for their Linux/buildroot based firmware.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]