roadmap VS foundation

Good to see, waiting on https://github.com/opentffoundation/roadmap/issues/8 so can do some testing (yes can build from source, but I'd rather use the releases)

Not the OP, but I suspect HN has trimmed the anchor link.

> https://github.com/opentffoundation/roadmap/issues/24#issuec...

That's the comment that made the issue clear -- specifically TOS were amended for https://registry.terraform.io to state:

> You may download providers, modules, policy libraries and/or other Services or Content from this website __solely for use with, or in support of, HashiCorp Terraform.__

ie., it looks like the intent is "You can't use OpenTF with registry.terraform.io".

IMO, that feels a little petty. But, I guess if OpenTF is taking a position of "Use us instead of Terraform", then they shouldn't expect to get the usage of Hashicorps infra.

Making sure there aren't any trademark infringements left, that we have some basic community process in place, etc.

There's unfortunately a bunch of these things we have to do before we can publish. We created a public roadmap repo if you'd like to track the progress[0]. We're doing our best to make it public as soon as possible.

[0]: https://github.com/opentffoundation/roadmap/milestones

Disclaimer: Work at Spacelift, and currently temporary Technical Lead of the OpenTF Project, until it's committee-steered.

A mature open source project may be governed under an open source foundation which usually gives it a charter https://github.com/cncf/foundation/blob/main/charter.md#3-va...

... and/or set of values: https://kubernetes.io/community/values/

There's also a lot of open source guides here https://todogroup.org/resources/guides/ that may help you if you're looking at building mature open source projects.

The CNCF has made exceptions on their license policy before, specifically for MPL based software. It'll probably be easier for OpenTF to go through that process than to relicense (which is likely not even possible for anyone other than Hashicorp).

- https://github.com/cncf/foundation/tree/main/license-excepti...

- https://github.com/cncf/foundation/blob/main/license-excepti...

Your comment or post were removed for violating the CNCF Code of Conduct. Please take a moment to review that here: https://github.com/cncf/foundation/blob/master/code-of-conduct.md

His behavior offends me as a professional software engineer and/ in my opinion, violates CNCF Code of Conduct https://github.com/cncf/foundation/blob/master/code-of-conduct.md.

Anyone can become a member. Non-profit as in https://github.com/cncf/foundation/blob/master/charter.md

Read more about role of the CNCF, their projects and Values here.

https://github.com/cncf/foundation/blob/master/allowed-third...

I haven't read the details, or ever seen this policy before (I'm new to both projects) but it was summarized by one of our counterparts at the Linux Foundation here:

https://twitter.com/cra/status/1384859663615864833

Tl;dr: licenses must be approved for use, and the CNCF has this list of allowed licenses, AGPL is not on it. The CNCF is in the business of distributing permissively-licensed software is the short version I guess. I don't understand, I don't work on the legal side, I am a dev and I support end users.

It seems if your Apache 2.0 licensed project needs to modify and distribute as modified Grafana, which it seems likely we will need to do at some point, then you cannot distribute them together. Chris says they are going to work something out, but when a component has made a decision to re-license with a restrictive-copyleft license such as AGPL, I don't know what there is that can be done.

Maybe the CNCF adopts AGPL too, (which would mean that then all those "viral-GPL" FUD-spreaders will have been right...) that seems counter-productive if that is the outcome.