Hi, This license change is so disappointing... On 18/08/23 at 08:07 -0300, Antonio Terceiro wrote: > > Plan B. > > > > - Drop vagrant because of that changed licence and no need to > > keep older vagrant. > > - No vagrant avaiable in Debian. Just use upstream's package. > > I think keeping a stale version of vagrant in the archive is worse than > telling people to just use upstream packages. A follow-up question, especially in the case of Plan B, is: what do we do about Debian Vagrant images provided on Vagrant Cloud (https://app.vagrantup.com/debian/) ? A/ continue to maintain them. But as the main uploader of those images in the recent times, I might not continue to maintain them, especially if I move to another tool for my own uses, so we might need to look for other volunteers. B/ stop maintaining them B.1/ ... and remove existing images from the 'debian' Vagrant Cloud account B.2/ ... and leave the 'debian' Vagrant Cloud account as it is currently I don't think B.2 is a good idea. > Hopefully, being burned a second time will teach me to not put my > volunteer time in non-copyleft packages provided by a single > corporation. Note that the fact that Vagrant was using a non-copyleft license is not entirely relevant. The same relicensing could be achieved by organizations using a copyleft licence with a copyright transfer agreement for external contributions. (I suspect that this is how it was achieved for other Hashicorp products, but I haven't checked). Lucas
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature