this post was submitted on 19 Aug 2023
104 points (100.0% liked)

Technology

37712 readers
187 users here now

A nice place to discuss rumors, happenings, innovations, and challenges in the technology sphere. We also welcome discussions on the intersections of technology and society. If it’s technological news or discussion of technology, it probably belongs here.

Remember the overriding ethos on Beehaw: Be(e) Nice. Each user you encounter here is a person, and should be treated with kindness (even if they’re wrong, or use a Linux distro you don’t like). Personal attacks will not be tolerated.

Subcommunities on Beehaw:

This community's icon was made by Aaron Schneider, under the CC-BY-NC-SA 4.0 license.

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
alyaza@beehaw.org
TheRtRevKaiser@beehaw.org
gyrfalcon@beehaw.org
rs5th@beehaw.org
SemioticStandard@beehaw.org
TheRtRevKaiser@kbin.social
Los@beehaw.org
coldredlight@beehaw.org
remington@beehaw.org
104
Terraform, Vault, Nomad etc by HashiCorp moving away from Open Source (thenewstack.io)
submitted 1 year ago by thewitchofcalamari@bookwormstory.social to c/technology@beehaw.org
24 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 
  • HashiCorp is moving its products previously licensed as Open Source away from it to Business Source License (BSL) moving forward
  • Terraform is a popular Infrastructure as Code tool used for provisioning cloud resources like AWS, Azure among others
  • Terraform version 1.5.5 and earlier are still open source
  • there is a push for a community maintained open source fork if this decision is not reversed, OpenTF

Gruntwork response on the problem with BSL

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] jet@hackertalks.com 11 points 1 year ago (3 children)

For the people who continue to work on the open source fork of terraform, can HashiCorp pull their commits into their closed source BSL fork?

I would assume not, but I am curious if there's some weird workaround of their previous license that they still own contributions

[–] robyoung@beehaw.org 5 points 1 year ago

The integrations with other services are implemented in plugins which are separate programs, that are installed separately, and communicate with the core over RPC. I would imagine these plugins can continue to be licensed however their owners choose. I think this license change just applies to core.

[–] Bitrot@lemmy.sdf.org 4 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I’m not as familiar with MPLv2 but I don’t think they can with contributions to the fork. Since those contributions won’t be part of the original “we own all your work” agreement they couldn’t simply close source those contributions.

[–] jarfil@beehaw.org 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

From the BSL FAQ:

Q: I have written a code patch to a BSL project and would like the BSL vendor to maintain the code as part of the BSL project. How do I contribute it?

A: License your code using the “new BSD” license or dedicate it to the public domain. Code contributions under “new BSD” is compatible with BSL. See BSD on Wikipedia.

That would seem to rule out the MPLv2.

[–] Bitrot@lemmy.sdf.org 1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

That is for continuing contributions to the commercial project, the fork should be using the old license not the BSL.

If HashiCorp is unwilling to switch Terraform back to an open source license, we propose to fork the legacy MPL-licensed Terraform

The question was if HashiCorp could take contributions to the fork and put them into their commercial product.

[–] jarfil@beehaw.org 1 points 1 year ago

That means HashiCorp could only take contributions licensed under the BSD or public domain, or under a CLA. The fork would be none of those.