matdevdug, (edited ) to random
@matdevdug@c.im avatar
mort, to Redis
@mort@fosstodon.org avatar

Huh wow, TIL never had a contributor license agreement.

Does that make this the first high-profile case of a previously-FOSS project relicensing while having a bunch of contributions made by people who didn't consent to the license change? ..How is that going to go down

nemobis,
@nemobis@mamot.fr avatar

@marcus_grant Yes, clarifying mutual expectations is good. If a contract on top of the license helps, so be it.

I'm not convinced it's primarily a legal issue: to this day, if you're a self-hosted user of , you have no way to throw money at HashiCorp even if you want to.

Same with the fiasco (https://github.com/cncf/toc/issues/1262): did Buoyant ever ask help from or anyone before cutting off the supposed free-riders?

Maybe the VC playbook doesn't fit collaboration.

anderseknert, to terraform
@anderseknert@hachyderm.io avatar

While I’ll be following the / drama with interest, this isn’t a rug pull like the license switch. means the source code is… well, open. That’s all. I’ve said it before: there’s no “spirit of open source” that always seems to put a ton of obligations on maintainers but never on users.

Doesn’t mean anyone has to be happy about the change, and I fully understand those who aren’t. But if it’s not in a license — OSS or commercial — it’s not an obligation.

BPariseau, to random
@BPariseau@hachyderm.io avatar
  • All
  • Subscribed
  • Moderated
  • Favorites
  • JUstTest
  • kavyap
  • DreamBathrooms
  • khanakhh
  • mdbf
  • InstantRegret
  • magazineikmin
  • everett
  • cubers
  • rosin
  • Youngstown
  • slotface
  • ngwrru68w68
  • tacticalgear
  • megavids
  • thenastyranch
  • modclub
  • Durango
  • GTA5RPClips
  • cisconetworking
  • osvaldo12
  • ethstaker
  • Leos
  • tester
  • anitta
  • normalnudes
  • provamag3
  • lostlight
  • All magazines