I bet AWS would give them a good run for their money on that metric. I got the impression that Google was predominately a C++ shop, whereas the rumor mills tell me that most of the AWS control plane is in Java (I am pretty sure I've actually gotten a stack trace from an AWS API once or twice, but foolishly I didn't save it)
TernFS is Free Software. The default license for TernFS is GPL-2.0-or-later.
The protocol definitions (go/msgs/), protocol generator (go/bincodegen/) and client library (go/client/, go/core/) are licensed under Apache-2.0 with the LLVM-exception. This license combination is both permissive (similar to MIT or BSD licenses) as well as compatible with all GPL licenses. We have done this to allow people to build their own proprietary client libraries while ensuring we can also freely incorporate them into the GPL v2 licensed Linux kernel.
For fear of having dang show up and scold me, I'll just add the factual statement that I will never ever believe any open source claim in any Launch HN ever. I can now save myself the trouble of checking, because I can be certain it's untrue
I already knew to avoid "please share your thoughts," although I guess I am kind of violating that one by even commenting
I agree, I've seen so many products start open source to gain traction, get into YC, and then either go closed source or change the license. That's a bait and switch and I appreciate the comment pointing it out.
I downloaded Cactus a couple months back because I saw a comment, but bait and switch like this makes we want to look for an actual open source solution.
The license change doesn’t affect you based on your explanation actually, the licence has been updated with clearer words. We really appreciate you as a user, please share any more feedback you have, thanks.
I don’t appreciate you dismissing my claim. When I installed Cactus chat months ago, the company was claiming that Cactus chat would allow users to connect to other apps on their device and allow them to be controlled by AI.
Your license change goes against that. You say it’s free for personal use but how many times do people create something for personal use and monetize it later? What if I use Cactus chat to control a commercial app? Does that make Cactus chat use “commercial”?
It’s absolutely fine to share your thoughts, that’s the point of this post, we want to understand where people’s heads are at, it’s what determines our next decisions. What do you really think? I’m genuinely asking so I don’t think mods will react.
Here’s an example of what I want to do: ship our application entirely open source/free (AGPL3), but with options for interested parties who want to pay us for support/consulting to do so. Likewise, we want interested parties who want to build their own proprietary app on top of our stack to be able to do so.
Mixing in a “you have to pay if you’re a corporation” licence makes this difficult if not impossible, particularly if we wanted deep integration with eg Cactus. We don’t want to police a “corporation” who wants to use our open source software.
Thanks for pointing this out, another factor for us to figure out. We waive the license for such cases, wanna get in touch? I don’t think your consumers have to worry about the license.
predict is the operative word there, because Terraform is so disconnected from the underlying provider's mental model that it is the expression "no plan survives first contact with the enemy" made manifest
Now, I am one million percent open to the pushback that "well, that's a provider's problem" but I also can't easily tell if they are operating within the bounds of TF's mental model, or is it literally that every provider ever is just that lazy?
