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.
HashiCorp changes license from Mozilla Public License 2.0 to Business Source License 1.1 on some of their products.
Submitted 1 year ago by starman@programming.dev to programming@programming.dev
https://www.hashicorp.com/blog/hashicorp-adopts-business-source-license
Comments
sweng@programming.dev 1 year ago
veloxy@lemmy.world 1 year 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 1 year 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 1 year ago
The FAQ covers this:
- 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.
Illecors@lemmy.cafe 1 year ago
I understand their reasoning, but am still left disappointed.
Quill7513@slrpnk.net 1 year ago
That’s where I’m at too. Philosophically its a bummer. For the majority of users of their codebase however, this presents zero changes and the only entity I known of who would be impacted by this change going forward is AWS
Illecors@lemmy.cafe 1 year ago
So I was trying to figure out what are they getting defensive against. It was clear in redhat’s case, but I only really found pulumi as some sort of alternative to terraform and I’m not even sure it relies on it. What is the AWS product that’s competing here?
allywilson@sopuli.xyz 1 year ago
Curious, how will AWS be affected? I’m not familiar with all of Hashicorp’s tools. Mostly just Terraform (and obvs AWS had Cloud Formation, then CDK - they even worked with HashiCorp I believe to build CDKTF).
ck_@discuss.tchncs.de 1 year ago
I honestly don’t.
AWS and other cloud providers have already proven, eg. with Mongo and Elastic, that they are perfectly happy to either provide an API compatible offering or just fork the product and then offer the service at a lower price point, which proves again that if the only thing you have to compete is price, you don’t have a competitive product.
starman@programming.dev 1 year ago
That is why 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.
manitcor@lemmy.intai.tech 1 year ago
was about to include it in my stack, guess i wont be now.
kresten@feddit.dk 1 year ago
What does this mean?🤔
silent_water@hexbear.net 1 year ago
I appreciate Grafana going in the opposite direction and relicensing under the AGPL. it largely serves the same purpose but it provides a stronger guarantee for users.