On Sat, Aug 19, 2023 at 06:46:06AM +0200, Lucas Nussbaum wrote: > 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. I agree. Just as we provide cloud images for proprietary platforms, I think we as a project want to control what is available as "Debian" for Vagrant users, just like we do with images targetted at proprietary cloud platforms. > > 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). Yes, that's true.
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature