Hacker News Reader

Comment by jen20 | Hacker News Reader

How exactly do the companies involved plan to fund a fork? It would require at minimum 3-4 full time engineers, and no one is going to do that work for free.

It’s also telling that this manifesto blithely suggests TF could become Apache 2, which is wholly untrue.

View on HN

An earlier version of the manifesto contained pledged resources from each company (you can still find it in commit history). It totalled to ~10 full-time engineers just from founding orgs. It was removed to simplify adding their entries for new pledgees

Omitting commitment details may simplify pledges, but it also makes pledges almost meaningless. I'd take pledges much more seriously if they still had details

I am a co-founder of Terrateam and we have made a pledge for OpenTF. I understand where you are coming from, but right now it is difficult to know what exactly to pledge as we want a dialogue with HashiCorp on what they need as well, if they want to donate to a foundation.

We just moved to a table format for pledges and brought back the commitments so you can see them: https://opentf.org/

Do the founding orgs have public disclosure of their finances? It seems the vast majority of them are VC backed companies that probably don't even have two years worth of runway, let alone be in a position to meaningfully commit to funding engineers for five years.

> It’s also telling that this manifesto blithely suggests TF could become Apache 2, which is wholly untrue.

Why is it untrue? If Hashicorp has the ability to relicense to BSL, what would prevent them relicensing to anything else?

They can make their own contributions going forwards BSL licensed. They can also make their own contributions Apache 2 _going forward_.

They could only make my contributions to Terraform Apache 2 with permission, so at best it could be MPLv2 with Apache 2 files interspersed.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com