Terraform, Vault, Nomad etc by HashiCorp moving away from Open Source

thenewstack.io

HashiCorp Abandons Open Source for Business Source License

HashiCorp is moving its products previously licensed as Open Source away from it to Business Source License (BSL) moving forward
Terraform is a popular Infrastructure as Code tool used for provisioning cloud resources like AWS, Azure among others
Terraform version 1.5.5 and earlier are still open source
there is a push for a community maintained open source fork if this decision is not reversed, OpenTF

Gruntwork response on the problem with BSL

https://blog.gruntwork.io/the-future-of-terraform-must-be-open-ab0b9ba65bca?gi=be31818bcbaf
Gruntwork is a creator of the tool Terragrunt which is an open source wrapper around Terraform to provide some additional tools for it

22 comments

- I for one am recommending pulumi for any of my teams new infrastructure needs.
- I wonder how many of those "open source developers", are actually employees of the same companies HashiCorp is accusing now of competing against them. No company is going to pay their employees to contribute to a piece of software, that they then have to buy a license for... so this can very well mean that HashiCorp is cutting off contributions from the same people most capable of contributing in the first place.
- No, just new versions.
We were considering Vault, I guess we'll look into alternatives now, are there any decent Free Software ones in the first place?
- ive not done secrets management before but i came across this list on hackernews, a few non-cloud ones use open source license https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37133054#37151218
  but another user there have mentioned that while most of them integrate with Kubernetes and AWS, short lived DB credentials are not in any of those listed
- I'm not an infra dev, but a previous project used SOPS and it seemed alright
- I've been using Infisical recently and I like it a lot.
What a shame.
- The integrations with other services are implemented in plugins which are separate programs, that are installed separately, and communicate with the core over RPC. I would imagine these plugins can continue to be licensed however their owners choose. I think this license change just applies to core.
- When Canonical originally had such a CLA to contribute to Ubuntu it was pretty controversial (I don’t think it was common at all at the time), this situation with HashiCorp perfectly demonstrates why.
- I’m not as familiar with MPLv2 but I don’t think they can with contributions to the fork. Since those contributions won’t be part of the original “we own all your work” agreement they couldn’t simply close source those contributions.
  
  From the BSL FAQ:
  Q: I have written a code patch to a BSL project and would like the BSL vendor to maintain the code as part of the BSL project. How do I contribute it?
  A: License your code using the “new BSD” license or dedicate it to the public domain. Code contributions under “new BSD” is compatible with BSL. See BSD on Wikipedia.
  That would seem to rule out the MPLv2.
I was hit aggressively by HC sales team last year, we are using TF and Vault, and were looking to add consul, now it is pretty vauge how it will all pan put
Fuck'em. 'Nuff said.
Not that I'd know much about this, but can't you easily replace terraform with some script that remotely installs NixOS?
- i dont think theyre equivalent tools since Terraform is used for things like creating cloud VMs with the selected OS image, configuring subnets and route tables among other things which i dont believe NixOS is meant for
  
  Terraform is great automation, but it really shines over scripts in a few ways:
  intrinsic documentation for your infrastructure
  much less brittle to differences in the initial state
  changing your setup later doesn't require any new script logic, just a simple config change
  much better support for collaborative editing

22 comments