niels/blog
1
0
Fork 0
forked from pim/blog
Code Pull requests Activity

Improve about page

Browse source 
Remove cache and compiled site
This commit is contained in:
Pim Kunis 2024-04-30 13:12:09 +02:00
parent 77d432ad8b
commit 03cf79e8f0
82 changed files with 321 additions and 1405 deletions
Download patch file Download diff file Expand all files Collapse all files

49
.jekyll-cache/Jekyll/Cache/Jekyll--Converters--Markdown/b4/97aba66d754cde21ccf57911a944a2c6cdecdcf1af5627383af00a22c1698a Normal file
View file

@ -0,0 +1,49 @@
I"Ð <p><em>See the <a href="#update">Update</a> at the end of the article.</em></p>
<p>Already a week ago, Hashicorp <a href="https://www.hashicorp.com/blog/hashicorp-adopts-business-source-license">announced</a> it would change the license on almost all its projects.
Unlike <a href="https://github.com/hashicorp/terraform/commit/ab411a1952f5b28e6c4bd73071194761da36a83f">their previous license</a>, which was the Mozilla Public License 2.0, their new license is no longer truly open source.
It is called the Business Source Licenseâ„¢ and restricts use of their software for competitors.
In their own words:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>Vendors who provide competitive services built on our community products will no longer be able to incorporate future releases, bug fixes, or security patches contributed to our products.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>I found <a href="https://meshedinsights.com/2021/02/02/rights-ratchet/">a great article</a> by MeshedInsights that names this behaviour the “rights ratchet modelâ€<C3A2>.
They define a script start-ups use to garner the interest of open source enthusiasts but eventually turn their back on them for profit.
The reason why Hashicorp can do this, is because contributors signed a copyright license agreement (CLA).
This agreement transfers the copyright of contributors’ code to Hashicorp, allowing them to change the license if they want to.</p>
<p>I find this action really regrettable because I like their products.
This sort of action was also why I wanted to avoid using an Elastic stack, which also had their <a href="https://www.elastic.co/pricing/faq/licensing">license changed</a>.<sup id="fnref:elastic" role="doc-noteref"><a href="#fn:elastic" class="footnote" rel="footnote">1</a></sup>
These companies do not respect their contributors and the software stack beneath they built their product on, which is actually open source (Golang, Linux, etc.).</p>
<h1 id="impact-on-my-home-lab">Impact on my Home Lab</h1>
<p>I am using Terraform in my home lab to manage several important things:</p>
<ul>
<li>Libvirt virtual machines</li>
<li>PowerDNS records</li>
<li>Elasticsearch configuration</li>
</ul>
<p>With Hashicorp’s anti open source move, I intend to move away from Terraform in the future.
While I will not use Hashicorp’s products for new personal projects, I will leave my current setup as-is for some time because there is no real need to quickly migrate.</p>
<p>I might also investigate some of Terraform’s competitors, like Pulumi.
Hopefully there is a project that respects open source which I can use in the future.</p>
<h1 id="update">Update</h1>
<p>A promising fork of Terraform has been announced called <a href="https://opentf.org/announcement">OpenTF</a>.
They intend to take part of the Cloud Native Computing Foundation, which I think is a good effort because Terraform is so important for modern cloud infrastructures.</p>
<h1 id="footnotes">Footnotes</h1>
<div class="footnotes" role="doc-endnotes">
<ol>
<li id="fn:elastic" role="doc-endnote">
<p>While I am still using Elasticsearch, I don’t use the rest of the Elastic stack in order to prevent a vendor lock-in. <a href="#fnref:elastic" class="reversefootnote" role="doc-backlink">&#8617;</a></p>
</li>
</ol>
</div>
:ET