Hacker News Reader

Comment by dralley | Hacker News Reader

I don't see how any of this could be true considering IBM is also heavily involved in OpenTofu (and did so first)

Exactly right. You're making my point for me. :-) Oracle can now say it has one solution, whereas with IBM the attention is split between Terraform and OpenTofu.

If you're an enterprise customer, do you want your enterprise deployments on a company that knowingly does two near-identical implementations, and can't seem to decide on which one to favor?

I was wondering, once IBM got Hashicorp, if they would reverse the license change for Terraform. Not been that long since the announcement, so still hoping they will.

Has there ever been notable instances of company regretting and reversing license change of a major project?

Unity!

Lerna, if that's major enough for you.

Oracle ended OpenSolaris although forks continue. Nokia and friends ended OpenSymbian, no forks afaik.

We're talking about an acquisition, not the original company making the reversal.

Red Hat used to routinely open-source acquisitions. Sun also did— that's how we got OpenOffice (and by way of it, LibreOffice). StarOffice was proprietary when Sun bought it.

I believe Hashicorp's move wrt the license of TF was in order to close the IBM takeover deal.

You keep posting this completely unsubstantiated theory.

Way back when the license changed the threads on HN had HashiCorp employees claiming the change was primarily to protect HashiCorp from the fact IBM was reselling Vault. IBM then went ahead and helped fork Vault (OpenBao).

Definitely not the case. HC leadership was totally desperate for any way to increase revenue and/or stock price. See also the announcement in a recent quarterly report that they were going to start doing share buybacks even though they are still operating at a loss.

If they do it likely won’t be until after the deal closes.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com