The actual license at https://www.hashicorp.com/bsl says "provided such use does not include offering the Licensed Work to third parties on a hosted or embedded basis which is competitive with HashiCorp's products." To me this sounds like a self-hosted version of something could still work with terraform, and you just have to provide the binary yourself vs. it being pre-packaged. IANAL; it would be pretty shitty if they started going after products that support terraform as a tool that way.
Either way, good luck.
I know that FOSS works differently, but that's also the reason why a lot of open source software is of questionable quality. When the development becomes a burden (is not fun anymore) and nobody is compensated, why would someone waste their time on it? Good will only goes that far.
Not suggesting that proprietary software is without faults, but maybe such licenses are a good comprise?
I’m not claiming it’s not the same monetization model, but with endless talk from these companies about the commitment to OSS and the virtues of OSS and the benefits HashiCorp has and would continue to receive by keeping their code OSS - it’s just ironic to see most of these companies have no open source code and aren’t actually willing to commit to an OSS model.
In the TF scenario specifically it seems like it would have been smarter for hashicorp to open the core oss project to some outside contributors more directly (potentially moving to a different "ownership" on GH).
Maybe they'll relent and throw support behind the new project. Who knows.
Thought the same. I think the uproar is partly manufactured by competitors and freeloaders who are affected by this license change, eg. Spacelift.