3 ms·

well, today's society is much more polarised, for example. (see the entire discussion lol) and also, the whole ecosystem didn't exist when FOSS was created suc

well, today's society is much more polarised, for example. (see the entire discussion lol) and also, the whole ecosystem didn't exist when FOSS was created such as selling your software AND a cloud offering for it. If you created let's say an office suite and made it open, your competitor couldn't sell SaaS based on it 20 years ago because SaaS just didn't exist as a concept.... they could try to sell the same product debranded but that's not a very good business strategy. hashicorp made a good decision here by being FOSS while it made sense, and when the leeches appeared, they decided to restrict future versions. This kind of leeching is the next m$-like EEE (extend, embrace, extinguish) - steal FOSS, host it and capture all the profits, while not maintaining or improving the software at all. This kind of rent-seeking was simply unimaginable in the 90s when FOSS became a thing. Also, hashicorp didn't leech off anyone (they didn't make the licence change retroactive, it's only future versions) because their contributions remain available under the same licence - it only applies to future hashi commits. Why shouldn't hashicorp have the freedom to commit in the fuiture with a different licence?

ImPostingOnHN 3y ago
the "leeching" in question is Hashicorp leeching off open source developers before closing the source the "rent seeking" in question is Hashicorp seeking rent, here, now FOSS generally allows competitors to use your product to compete against you, and always has (the "free" in FOSS refers to freedom) also, nobody leeched off Hashicorp, they used the software as the license and Hashicorp intended, until Hashicorp changed their mind on being FOSS. Why shouldn't they have the freedom to use software in accordance with the license?
- Pannoniae 3y ago
  In a similar way, why shouldn't Hashicorp have the freedom to use a different licence going forward? They didn't leech off anyone, the software was under MPL previously, under which people contributed. Now it is not anymore, you can decide whether you want to contribute under BSL or not. "FOSS generally allows competitors to use your product to compete against you, and always has" Sure, I know, but I don't think that's viable when you are running a business. You have to take some freedoms away if you want to have a viable product.
  - ImPostingOnHN 3y ago
    In a similar way, why shouldn't software users have the freedom to use Hashicorp's software in a way both Hashicorp and the license intended? Such users didn't leech off anyone. > I don't think that's viable when you are running a business. You have to take some freedoms away if you want to have a viable product. I don't agree with this opinion, but even if it were true, it raises the question of why, then, Hashicorp chose that path in the first place, when they knew what FOSS meant? If they didn't like the freedom part of FOSS, they didn't have to embrace it, but they did, and they did

ImPostingOnHN 3y ago

the "leeching" in question is Hashicorp leeching off open source developers before closing the source the "rent seeking" in question is Hashicorp seeking rent, here, now FOSS generally allows competitors to use your product to compete against you, and always has (the "free" in FOSS refers to freedom) also, nobody leeched off Hashicorp, they used the software as the license and Hashicorp intended, until Hashicorp changed their mind on being FOSS. Why shouldn't they have the freedom to use software in accordance with the license?

Pannoniae 3y ago
In a similar way, why shouldn't Hashicorp have the freedom to use a different licence going forward? They didn't leech off anyone, the software was under MPL previously, under which people contributed. Now it is not anymore, you can decide whether you want to contribute under BSL or not. "FOSS generally allows competitors to use your product to compete against you, and always has" Sure, I know, but I don't think that's viable when you are running a business. You have to take some freedoms away if you want to have a viable product.
- ImPostingOnHN 3y ago
  In a similar way, why shouldn't software users have the freedom to use Hashicorp's software in a way both Hashicorp and the license intended? Such users didn't leech off anyone. > I don't think that's viable when you are running a business. You have to take some freedoms away if you want to have a viable product. I don't agree with this opinion, but even if it were true, it raises the question of why, then, Hashicorp chose that path in the first place, when they knew what FOSS meant? If they didn't like the freedom part of FOSS, they didn't have to embrace it, but they did, and they did