While I’m sure you are earnest, you should probably stop right now. Forking a repo is not sufficient. You need to remove trademark infringement and anything which does not fall under the MPLv2 license - much like the (former) CentOS process for rebuilding RHEL.
Should you ever distribute binaries, you also need to do a better job than HashiCorp of obeying the license terms of your dependencies around attribution.
Finally, as someone who has actually done the job of core maintenance of Terraform, I suspect you are also vastly underestimating the amount of work involved. I just set a reminder to look at this fork in 3 months, I’d put money on it being dead.
Well, they appear NOT to know these things, since the name of the repo infringes a trademark, and infringing use of the logo is right in the middle of the README.
“We’ll get to fixing that later” is not a valid response - this is clearly a minimal-effort attempt at a mindshare land grab from a competitor.
Clicking the fork button is not “work” to be clear.
Hashicorp have Terraform registered as a trademark[0] and they themselves have said they don't want the name used in a way that is confusing or suggests enforcement by Hashicorp[1]. So the GP definitely cannot call themselves "OpenTerraform".
There's real reasons to do this. It stops exactly what HashiCorp is doing, and you are likely giving HashiCorp the ability to take your code without giving back.
You can't change the MPL code to GPL. You can change net-new files to GPL, but the existing files must remain MPL AFAIK (unless you're HashiCorp). IANAL
> When someone combines a file or files licensed under the Mozilla Public License, version 2.0 ("MPL") with a project licensed under the GNU General Public License or Lesser General Public Licenses ("(L)GPL"), the MPL's Section 3.3 allows distribution of the combined work (the "Larger Work") subject to the terms of both licenses, as long as certain conditions are met.
Once a file has been distributed under both the (L)GPL and the MPL, recipients of that file can later distribute it solely under the terms of the (L)GPL, in accordance with the terms of that license. If a project wishes to do this, and not to allow others to use their version of this file under the MPL, the project can indicate its decision by deleting the MPL headers described in Exhibit A of the license and replacing them with the standard notice recommended by the (L)GPL. Copyright notices indicating authorship of the file should be retained.
... So you combine with GPL code, and then, say "I don't want to use the MPL."
Is this really so complicated? All updates to be done in the future are licensed under the GPL.
The only firm that benefits from the MPL here is Hashicorp, which is the company that the fork is being done against. Fork it and be done... It isn't like the MPL code can integrate with the BSL code.
