Hello! I think your comment is missing some facts that might change your opinion:
1. Open-source software is a gift to the world. You make it, release it, and people can do whatever they want with it, including not contribute back. There is no exploitation here. You can build a trillion dollar business on top of Linux, without paying Linux anything. This is how open source is meant to work. This is the known contract when you release something as open source. To imply that by following the spirit of open source, somehow HashiCorp, a 5 or 6 billion dollar company is being exploited doesn't quite jive, IMO.
2. HCP has been clear that they will not put forth resources to review pull requests. They let many good pull requests languish until they die. If HCP were better stewards of the Terraform community and prioritized contributions, would things be different? I don't know. But I think if one is going to say the competitors should have contributed to Terraform, one also has to acknowledge that HCP has explicitly stated they are not going to prioritize reviewing your contribution. If you're looking for the best way to spend your engineering time, the best business decision for you is probably not to spend a lot of time on a piece of work that may die in the vine.
3. But it's not even just to say none of these folks have contributed back. They may not have many commits in the repository, but Gruntwork has created Terragrunt, which is free and open source. This has impacted the community considerably. The founders have written a book on Terraform.
4. Where is HCPs acknowledgment of all of the people that saw Terraform as stable open source foundation to build providers for, to build tooling for, to contribute pull requests to? Terraform itself is pretty simple, the hard work is in the providers. HCP makes some of the important providers, yes, but so many providers are made because Terraform is popular. HCP wants to make this all about them. They want you to think they put all the work into making Terraform what it is today. They did put a lot of work in, but the community did too!
> Terraform itself is pretty simple, the hard work is in the providers. HCP makes some of the important providers, yes, but so many providers are made because Terraform is popular. HCP wants to make this all about them. They want you to think they put all the work into making Terraform what it is today. They did put a lot of work in, but the community did too!
Could not agree more. Terraform, the tool is quite simple, engineering wise. Its the providers that interact with all the different apis, thats where the complexity lies in, and where a lot of community (+ corporate, through official providers) effort has gone in, and what has provided the most value.
1. Open-source software is a gift to the world. You make it, release it, and people can do whatever they want with it, including not contribute back. There is no exploitation here. You can build a trillion dollar business on top of Linux, without paying Linux anything. This is how open source is meant to work. This is the known contract when you release something as open source. To imply that by following the spirit of open source, somehow HashiCorp, a 5 or 6 billion dollar company is being exploited doesn't quite jive, IMO.
2. HCP has been clear that they will not put forth resources to review pull requests. They let many good pull requests languish until they die. If HCP were better stewards of the Terraform community and prioritized contributions, would things be different? I don't know. But I think if one is going to say the competitors should have contributed to Terraform, one also has to acknowledge that HCP has explicitly stated they are not going to prioritize reviewing your contribution. If you're looking for the best way to spend your engineering time, the best business decision for you is probably not to spend a lot of time on a piece of work that may die in the vine.
3. But it's not even just to say none of these folks have contributed back. They may not have many commits in the repository, but Gruntwork has created Terragrunt, which is free and open source. This has impacted the community considerably. The founders have written a book on Terraform.
4. Where is HCPs acknowledgment of all of the people that saw Terraform as stable open source foundation to build providers for, to build tooling for, to contribute pull requests to? Terraform itself is pretty simple, the hard work is in the providers. HCP makes some of the important providers, yes, but so many providers are made because Terraform is popular. HCP wants to make this all about them. They want you to think they put all the work into making Terraform what it is today. They did put a lot of work in, but the community did too!