[apgwoz]

Probably because Terraform’s value was always the community of providers and modules, and that was in danger.

Where as, Redis/Valkey’s ecosystem exists mainly as advocacy and happy users. It might be central to an architecture, sure, but using a previously open sourced version was unlikely to cause considerable problems.

Contrast to potential huge changes to the BUSL’d terraform that create incompatibility with existing providers would lock you in to HashiCorp’s new, unfavorable, terms.

[sofixa]

> Probably because Terraform’s value was always the community of providers and modules, and that was in danger.

It was never in danger, the providers remained under MPL and were explicitly excluded from the licensing change, with a good associated explanation (most of them were developed by and with partners and the community, unlike Terraform core which was almost entirely HashiCorp).

[apgwoz]

The providers need a “driver.” Without that, they aren’t very useful as is. That’s the danger. (Yes, pulumi, etc)

Additionally, HashiCorp changed the terms of service on the registry, making it only acceptable to use the official terraform binaries to download modules or providers.

Now, the providers are mostly open source, so, it was never impossible to recreate the thing—just work. But the point here is that Hashicorp took steps that caused the community of terraform users to recognize that closing off the ecosystem would have a tremendous impact on devops.

That’s why there was so much outrage and immediate action taken.

[sofixa]

> Additionally, HashiCorp changed the terms of service on the registry, making it only acceptable to use the official terraform binaries to download modules or providers.

Why would HashiCorp provide free hosting of providers and modules for projects competing, using HashiCorp's own code at that? Multiple entire companies exist doing little more than providing wrappers around stuff HashiCorp develops. HashiCorp has no obligation to give them everything so they have an easier time at undercutting them (because they don't have to actually develop the main stuff).

> But the point here is that Hashicorp took steps that caused the community of terraform users to recognize that closing off the ecosystem would have a tremendous impact on devops.

The community of people using alternative products off HashiCorp's efforts, code, and money. Terraform Community Edition is still free and usable for anyone as long as you don't sell it to compete with HashiCorp.

[apgwoz]

> Why would HashiCorp provide free hosting of providers and modules for projects competing, using HashiCorp's own code at that?

If you recall, my point is that “providers were in danger,” and this is a reason in support of that. HashiCorp, of course, has no obligation to host providers for competitors. But, this is one more reason OpenTofu succeeded!

> Terraform Community Edition is still free and usable for anyone as long as you don't sell it to compete with HashiCorp.

Except, it’s rather unclear what “compete with HashiCorp” means, and there’s very little assurance that if you stick with terraform community edition you won’t get screwed over and be forced to pay in 6 months.

You can make all the arguments about “needing to make money”, “free loaders”, etc. HashiCorp is not unique in changing licenses and getting backlash.

But, as someone who joined HashiCorp, in part, because of our open source strategy, and hearing over and over, for years, how it was the reason we were so successful…