<story><title>HashiCorp adopts Business Source License</title><url>https://www.hashicorp.com/blog/hashicorp-adopts-business-source-license</url></story><parent_chain><item><author>jamestanderson</author><text>All that I get from this is that HashiCorp is no longer an open source company.&lt;p&gt;&amp;gt; However, there are other vendors who take advantage of pure OSS models, and the community work on OSS projects, for their own commercial goals, without providing material contributions back. We don’t believe this is in the spirit of open source.&lt;p&gt;This is 100% in the spirit of open source. If this is a problem for them, why not adopt an open source license that compels developers to open source their code instead, like the AGPL?&lt;p&gt;This is purely a way for HashiCorp to ensure they are the only ones who can commercialize these formerly open source projects. Which is fine. But just go closed source, then, and own that, instead of trying to have it both ways.</text></item></parent_chain><comment><author>joeduffy</author><text>Pulumi Founder&amp;#x2F;CEO here.&lt;p&gt;The blog post is disingenuous. We tried many times to contribute upstream fixes to Terraform providers, but HashiCorp would never accept them. So we&amp;#x27;ve had to maintain forks. They lost their OSS DNA a long time ago, and this move just puts the final nail in the coffin.&lt;p&gt;Thankfully over time, they already pushed responsibility for most Terraform providers back onto their partners, so I&amp;#x27;m hopeful the ecosystem of providers can still stay vibrant and open.&lt;p&gt;We are deep believers in open source---heck my last project at Microsoft was to take .NET open source and cross-platform, our CTO helped found TypeScript, and Pulumi is an Apache open source project---it seems HashiCorp no longer is.</text></comment>
<story><title>HashiCorp adopts Business Source License</title><url>https://www.hashicorp.com/blog/hashicorp-adopts-business-source-license</url></story><parent_chain><item><author>jamestanderson</author><text>All that I get from this is that HashiCorp is no longer an open source company.&lt;p&gt;&amp;gt; However, there are other vendors who take advantage of pure OSS models, and the community work on OSS projects, for their own commercial goals, without providing material contributions back. We don’t believe this is in the spirit of open source.&lt;p&gt;This is 100% in the spirit of open source. If this is a problem for them, why not adopt an open source license that compels developers to open source their code instead, like the AGPL?&lt;p&gt;This is purely a way for HashiCorp to ensure they are the only ones who can commercialize these formerly open source projects. Which is fine. But just go closed source, then, and own that, instead of trying to have it both ways.</text></item></parent_chain><comment><author>davorak</author><text>&amp;gt; This is purely a way for HashiCorp to ensure they are the only ones who can commercialize these formerly open source projects. Which is fine. But just go closed source, then, and own that, instead of trying to have it both ways.&lt;p&gt;Pragmatically I would rather bsl than closed source and I am more likely to use a product that is bsl, with reasonable transfer time and license, than a 100% closed source product.</text></comment>