• bahmanm@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    35
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    edit-2
    3 years ago

    This is the 2nd of such moves this year to my knowledge; first there was #Lightbend and #Akka and now this. What a year for #FOSS 😕

    I know for a fact that so many organisations use #hashicorp products for commercial purposes w/o ever contributing back. And I understand how this may feel for hashicorp in these harsh economic times. Though this still is, IMHO, a cheap move: they used an OSS license for a very long time which resulted in a massive user base and a “soft” vendor lock-in, and now they decided to milk that user base.

    Looking forwards to solid community-driven forks of their products 💪

  • sweng@programming.dev
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    13
    ·
    3 years ago

    The biggest problem I see is that you can suddenly become non-compliant just because Hashicorp decides to release a new service (i.e.they start competing with you, rather than the other way). It can be a huge risk for companies.

    • veloxy@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      3 years ago

      So it would seem it’s always a good idea to contact them, get a commercial license or custom licensing terms (they do seem open to that from what I gather here and here) before building a business on top of their software.

      • sweng@programming.dev
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        3 years ago

        Probably works well if you are an established company, but why would e.g. a startup pick licensing headaches over the competition? I imagine bigger companies would also rather just move to e.g. CDK or ARM if they don’t need multiple providers (at least our company started discussing this today).

        What kind of “custom licensing” do you anyway think a 5-person startup would get?

    • bamboo@lemmy.blahaj.zone
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      3 years ago

      The FAQ covers this:

      1. If I want to build a product that is competitive with HashiCorp, does that mean I’m now prevented from using any HashiCorp tools under the BSL license?

      No. The BSL license does not prevent developers from using our tools to build competing products. For example, if someone built a product competitive with Vault, it would be permissible to deploy that product with Terraform. Similarly, if someone built a competitive product to Terraform, they could use Vault to secure it. What the BSL license would not allow is hosting or embedding Terraform in order to compete with Terraform, or hosting or embedding Vault to compete with Vault.

      So if you are selling a product and HashiCorp releases a product which competes with yours, you can still use Valut, Terraform, etc the way you had been. I can’t see a way for your senario to play out based on their FAQ.

  • starman@programming.devOP
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    9
    ·
    3 years ago

    From the blog post:

    […] today we are announcing that HashiCorp is changing its source code license from Mozilla Public License v2.0 (MPL 2.0) to the Business Source License (BSL, also known as BUSL) v1.1 on all future releases of HashiCorp products. HashiCorp APIs, SDKs, and almost all other libraries will remain MPL 2.0.

    BSL 1.1 is a source-available license that allows copying, modification, redistribution, non-commercial use, and commercial use under specific conditions.