[alephnerd]

Based on BSL, if you aren't trying to commercialize on top of Terraform you'd still be fine.

If you're using Terraform to manage deployments in test and development it's still business as usual, but if you're actively using them in production or making a company that sells a wrapper around Terraform then you'd have to pay Hashicorp.

Honestly it's pretty fair. I can continue to make my own personal, test, or development apps using vault, consul, and terraform.

And this move was done because plenty of large companies (not naming names because this is starting to touch a legal gray area) are using Vault and Consul in production to generate hundreds of millions to billions a year in revenue.

[sciurus]

As has been pointed out elsewhere in the comments, this is incorrect. The switch to BSL does not mean you have to start paying Hashicorp to use their formerly OSS products in production. To quote their FAQ:

> All non-production uses are permitted. All production uses are allowed other than hosting or embedding the software in an offering competitive with HashiCorp products or services.

[nijave]

Doesn't this eliminate any managed runners since they'd compete with Terraform Cloud?

[igorzij]

with Vault and Consul that makes a ton of sense; they're centralised backend services that are inherently SaaS-like. But expanding the "on top of terraform" definition to a CLI / language? That's insane. It's like making a programming language or framework proprietary and saying you can't sell anything written in the language without the language creator's permission. I guess such languages did exist in the early days of the industry but those days are long gone