4 ms·

I don’t see how it’s bait and switch. You can still used and develop against the last open version. In fact, we’ve seen recent examples of that in Terraform and

by tensor 2y ago

I don’t see how it’s bait and switch. You can still used and develop against the last open version. In fact, we’ve seen recent examples of that in Terraform and Redis. Open source does not mean you are entitled to all future improvements unless the license says you are, like the AGPL. Personally, I’m grateful these project made their source open for so long. The alternative would not be AGPL terraform, it would be completely closed terraform.

tyingq 2y ago
It probably feels like bait and switch for the folks that created or used lots of open source in the time period where there was less opportunity/temptation to move the license from GPL/BSD/MIT to something proprietary. In our minds, we attached some altruistic intent to those licenses. Things have changed now, of course.
- lolinder 2y ago
  Why do the actions of HashiCorp and company have any bearing whatsoever on your decision to release and use unrelated open source software?
  - tyingq 2y ago
    I'm not trying to rationalize my emotional reactions and say they make logical sense. Just explaining why they are there. But, if there was a long time period where almost no open source software went commercial...you would be conditioned to not worry about the risk of depending on it. Then when things change, you feel differently. I don't know why that's controversial.
dlisboa 2y ago
I’d also go as far as saying most of the value added to these open core projects is contributed by employees of the companies themselves. The fact that they do it out in the open with the possibility of someone else forking it is a plus, we shouldn’t want this to be solely proprietary. Hashicorp paid for a lot Terraform’s development for instance. Microsoft is paying top computer scientists to develop an editor
growse 2y ago
The bait and switch is the community and social elements, not the code. Inviting the local community to come and improve your space that you opened up for everyone to exist in, and then suddenly locking the doors is both entirely legally justified and a crappy thing to do.
- lolinder 2y ago
  This analogy falls flat because it makes it sound like the community is locked out of the improvements they made to your space. But there's no scarcity here: once HashiCorp locked the doors all of the improvements that the community made were still there, and the community could and did organize a new space for continued improvements.
  - growse 2y ago
    It’s not perfect, I agree, because code is trivially copied (unlike material things). But like I said, this is not about the code. The wider point about subverting expectations still stands. Yes, we re-organised into tofu/valkey/whatever but that’s come at a _cost_. It’s perfectly reasonable to say that this is open source working properly, the license lets them do this etc. I think it’s also perfectly reasonable to feel a little bit embittered towards a copyright owner pulling the shutters up and forcing everyone to move.
- skeledrew 2y ago
  The term "bait and switch" infers intent as well though. The community was invited to come and improve the space, but then there's this group that unexpectedly starts to monopolize that space in a way that destroys its viability. So controls need to be put in place, or eventually the space has to be totally abandoned or shut down.
- kube-system 2y ago
  I think this point of view is greedy. FOSS is about sharing code, not enslaving other developers or organizations indefinitely into the future.
dwaite 2y ago
IMHO that is because the argument is generally about free vs open source, when really what people often want is more of an open and reciprocating community. The ability for multiple vendors to coexist as peers is a strong signal that it is possible for anyone to come and both give and take to the level of their desires and needs (within generally fair ground rules). Foundations like Apache will often push for incubated projects to be maintained by participants from more than 1-2 companies before they will accept them as full-fledge, "graduated" projects. Commercial vendors may also change their terms from time to time, such as at contract renewal. However when you have a public-facing project, you may be affecting more than than your relationship with your individual customers, but relationships with the community as a whole. The multi-vendor forks of Terraform and Redis do illustrate these other vendors see tremendous value in that community, to the point where they'll try to move the existing community over to a new project. And why not? Companies like Amazon doesn't rely on renting out key/value data stores as their primary revenue source, but a community around that data store makes the corresponding product much more valuable. This is why creating a company around making an open source product is so hard - it is easy (via maintained control) to have a symbiotic relationship with the project you created and corresponding community turn parasitic. > Personally, I’m grateful these project made their source open for so long. The alternative would not be AGPL terraform, it would be completely closed terraform. Projects like Terraform do not work without massive community involvement in building providers and providing guidance and samples around manifests. In some cases, products have even built API around the need to write a Terraform provider. That sort of community growth and involvement around a closed source platform is exceedingly rare. The alternative to an open source Terraform would have most likely have been a failed Terraform project.

by tensor 2y ago

tyingq 2y ago

It probably feels like bait and switch for the folks that created or used lots of open source in the time period where there was less opportunity/temptation to move the license from GPL/BSD/MIT to something proprietary. In our minds, we attached some altruistic intent to those licenses. Things have changed now, of course.

lolinder 2y ago
Why do the actions of HashiCorp and company have any bearing whatsoever on your decision to release and use unrelated open source software?
- tyingq 2y ago
  I'm not trying to rationalize my emotional reactions and say they make logical sense. Just explaining why they are there. But, if there was a long time period where almost no open source software went commercial...you would be conditioned to not worry about the risk of depending on it. Then when things change, you feel differently. I don't know why that's controversial.

dlisboa 2y ago

I’d also go as far as saying most of the value added to these open core projects is contributed by employees of the companies themselves. The fact that they do it out in the open with the possibility of someone else forking it is a plus, we shouldn’t want this to be solely proprietary. Hashicorp paid for a lot Terraform’s development for instance. Microsoft is paying top computer scientists to develop an editor

growse 2y ago

The bait and switch is the community and social elements, not the code. Inviting the local community to come and improve your space that you opened up for everyone to exist in, and then suddenly locking the doors is both entirely legally justified and a crappy thing to do.

lolinder 2y ago
This analogy falls flat because it makes it sound like the community is locked out of the improvements they made to your space. But there's no scarcity here: once HashiCorp locked the doors all of the improvements that the community made were still there, and the community could and did organize a new space for continued improvements.
- growse 2y ago
  It’s not perfect, I agree, because code is trivially copied (unlike material things). But like I said, this is not about the code. The wider point about subverting expectations still stands. Yes, we re-organised into tofu/valkey/whatever but that’s come at a _cost_. It’s perfectly reasonable to say that this is open source working properly, the license lets them do this etc. I think it’s also perfectly reasonable to feel a little bit embittered towards a copyright owner pulling the shutters up and forcing everyone to move.
skeledrew 2y ago
The term "bait and switch" infers intent as well though. The community was invited to come and improve the space, but then there's this group that unexpectedly starts to monopolize that space in a way that destroys its viability. So controls need to be put in place, or eventually the space has to be totally abandoned or shut down.
kube-system 2y ago
I think this point of view is greedy. FOSS is about sharing code, not enslaving other developers or organizations indefinitely into the future.

dwaite 2y ago

IMHO that is because the argument is generally about free vs open source, when really what people often want is more of an open and reciprocating community. The ability for multiple vendors to coexist as peers is a strong signal that it is possible for anyone to come and both give and take to the level of their desires and needs (within generally fair ground rules). Foundations like Apache will often push for incubated projects to be maintained by participants from more than 1-2 companies before they will accept them as full-fledge, "graduated" projects. Commercial vendors may also change their terms from time to time, such as at contract renewal. However when you have a public-facing project, you may be affecting more than than your relationship with your individual customers, but relationships with the community as a whole. The multi-vendor forks of Terraform and Redis do illustrate these other vendors see tremendous value in that community, to the point where they'll try to move the existing community over to a new project. And why not? Companies like Amazon doesn't rely on renting out key/value data stores as their primary revenue source, but a community around that data store makes the corresponding product much more valuable. This is why creating a company around making an open source product is so hard - it is easy (via maintained control) to have a symbiotic relationship with the project you created and corresponding community turn parasitic. > Personally, I’m grateful these project made their source open for so long. The alternative would not be AGPL terraform, it would be completely closed terraform. Projects like Terraform do not work without massive community involvement in building providers and providing guidance and samples around manifests. In some cases, products have even built API around the need to write a Terraform provider. That sort of community growth and involvement around a closed source platform is exceedingly rare. The alternative to an open source Terraform would have most likely have been a failed Terraform project.