[ohad1282]

I think it is reasonable for a company to start OSS and then change its license. But it indeed feels like a rugpull for all the contributors.

That is why OpenTF is on its way to CNCF. To ensure it stays OSS forever.

There is a difference between "true OSS" like K8s, OPA, etc and "temporary OSS" (backed by a company) like what Terraform used to be, Pulumi, GitLab ,etc. Those can be changed in the future.

When developers chose OSS, they should consider if it is a CNCF OSS or a vendor backed OSS. What Hashi did is an important example.

(disclaimer - env0 founder here, co-lead the OpenTF initiative)

[AaronFriel]

> Pulumi is true open source, uses the Apache 2.0 license, and does not and never will depend on BSL-licensed software in any way, HashiCorp owned or otherwise.

https://www.pulumi.com/blog/pulumi-hearts-opensource/

Disclaimer: the following is my own opinion as an engineer at Pulumi.

Pulumi is true open source, with a relationship similar to git and the many SaaS services that layer on top of git to provide meaningful value.

To contrast with our competitor, Pulumi relies on open source languages and protocols. We could not, even if we wanted to, change the Python license. Nor could we change our protocols without breaking our users and our growing ecosystem.

That's the value of building on open protocols and standard languages.

[ohad1282]

fair point. makes sense.