4 ms·

Most people have no problem with non-open source software. The gnashing of teeth comes in when projects like Terraform become successful specifically because th

Most people have no problem with non-open source software. The gnashing of teeth comes in when projects like Terraform become successful specifically because they're open source, and then the maintainer changes to a closed source license that would have prevented the project from being successful in the first place. Doubly so when they relicense outside contributors' work with a closed source license because those contributors signed a CLA.

arp242 1y ago
Quite a few people commenting here are having problems with it in the case of Bearblog though, including some pretty wild accusations. And lets be real here: https://github.com/HermanMartinus/bearblog/graphs/contributors https://github.com/HermanMartinus/bearblog/graphs/contributo... Looking at the details of that, the only two (small) substantial code changes from other people are "User can delete their own account" from 2020, and "Use cloudflare online dns api to perform domain check" from 2021.
- jinzo 1y ago
  If we are real, it's also quite clear that contributions are not accepted at least from 2023. And the Readme talked about the project not meant to be self-hosted in the past. I have no horse in the race, just think that maybe this project is not a good measure of contributions.
- jakelazaroff 1y ago
  > Quite a few people commenting here are having problems with it in the case of Bearblog though, including some pretty wild accusations. That's why I said "most people" (of which I think HN commenters are not a representative sample) rather than "nobody" :)
deleted 1y ago
[deleted]
_puk 1y ago
Sounds like we need a "forever open source" license. A commitment that any significant derivative retain the original (or some later version) of the original license. "Free to do whatever as long as it retains this license. A commitment that this license will not change, even by the original author". No special cases, just a blanket license for all derivatives. If it exists, what are the barriers to adoption? Why don't we all use it?
- yjftsjthsd-h 1y ago
  I'm really not a lawyer, but I'm skeptical that such a thing is even possible; is it legally possible to say that you as the copyright owner will never relicense something? (What I'm given to understand does work is using a copyleft license and taking code from multiple parties without a CLA, because then relicensing requires all the copyright owners to agree, which for a large enough project is impractical.)
  - _puk 1y ago
    How about a standard entity "OSI perhaps?!", that commits a file to an early stage of the repository (could this be automated), who then cannot / will not give approval for a relicense?
    - j1elo 1y ago
      Relicensing still can be done, just keeping that file out. (and reimplementing it the same but with new code, if it was really needed for something important)
    - miggol 1y ago
      Love the idea but the thing is, if it's just one file then it's probably easy enough to work that contribution out of the repository. It is quite fun to try and think of ways that this could work though. Perhaps a bot that code-paraphrases (paracodes?) every accepted PR. Or maybe there's some crypto magic you could do to make the only option a clean room rewrite.
  - 1y ago
8organicbits 1y ago
The trick is not to get attached to a project name. `Terraform` is a trademark of IBM (previously Hashicorp). Terraform used to refer to an open-source IaC project, but now it doesn't. OpenTofu, https://opentofu.org https://opentofu.org, is probably the most accurate name for the continuation of that open-source project.
- account42 1y ago
  This is of course the correct way to proceed as an affected user but does not mean the bait and switch cannot be criticized.

arp242 1y ago

Quite a few people commenting here are having problems with it in the case of Bearblog though, including some pretty wild accusations. And lets be real here: https://github.com/HermanMartinus/bearblog/graphs/contributors https://github.com/HermanMartinus/bearblog/graphs/contributo... Looking at the details of that, the only two (small) substantial code changes from other people are "User can delete their own account" from 2020, and "Use cloudflare online dns api to perform domain check" from 2021.

jinzo 1y ago
If we are real, it's also quite clear that contributions are not accepted at least from 2023. And the Readme talked about the project not meant to be self-hosted in the past. I have no horse in the race, just think that maybe this project is not a good measure of contributions.
jakelazaroff 1y ago
> Quite a few people commenting here are having problems with it in the case of Bearblog though, including some pretty wild accusations. That's why I said "most people" (of which I think HN commenters are not a representative sample) rather than "nobody" :)

deleted 1y ago

[deleted]

_puk 1y ago

Sounds like we need a "forever open source" license. A commitment that any significant derivative retain the original (or some later version) of the original license. "Free to do whatever as long as it retains this license. A commitment that this license will not change, even by the original author". No special cases, just a blanket license for all derivatives. If it exists, what are the barriers to adoption? Why don't we all use it?

yjftsjthsd-h 1y ago
I'm really not a lawyer, but I'm skeptical that such a thing is even possible; is it legally possible to say that you as the copyright owner will never relicense something? (What I'm given to understand does work is using a copyleft license and taking code from multiple parties without a CLA, because then relicensing requires all the copyright owners to agree, which for a large enough project is impractical.)
- _puk 1y ago
  How about a standard entity "OSI perhaps?!", that commits a file to an early stage of the repository (could this be automated), who then cannot / will not give approval for a relicense?
  - j1elo 1y ago
    Relicensing still can be done, just keeping that file out. (and reimplementing it the same but with new code, if it was really needed for something important)
  - miggol 1y ago
    Love the idea but the thing is, if it's just one file then it's probably easy enough to work that contribution out of the repository. It is quite fun to try and think of ways that this could work though. Perhaps a bot that code-paraphrases (paracodes?) every accepted PR. Or maybe there's some crypto magic you could do to make the only option a clean room rewrite.
- 1y ago

8organicbits 1y ago

The trick is not to get attached to a project name. `Terraform` is a trademark of IBM (previously Hashicorp). Terraform used to refer to an open-source IaC project, but now it doesn't. OpenTofu, https://opentofu.org https://opentofu.org, is probably the most accurate name for the continuation of that open-source project.

account42 1y ago
This is of course the correct way to proceed as an affected user but does not mean the bait and switch cannot be criticized.