Replies: 3 comments
-
Hi 👋 Thanks for starting this discussion, really appreciate it.
I am currently discussing it with the devcontainers team on what approach should be taken for the Terraform Feature, would appreciate your patience. Thank you!
We have added support for marking a Feature as deprecated, see
|
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
Updates: The dev containers spec or the Features doesn't says that a dev container Feature(s) has to only install OSS components. The MIT license is for the Feature which is just an installer, and we install from an official source. What a user installs is governed by its own license and we are not redistributing by persisting it ourself. Hence, there are no changes/deprecations to be made to the Terraform Feature as it's still a legit option, thus, we have devcontainers/features#697 opened to note the licensing changes in the README file.
We shouldn't be deprecating the Terraform Feature, and for adding support for the Let us know if you any followup questions/concerns. Thank you! |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
Thank you for the comprehensive response. I appreciate the time taken to discuss the implications of the licensing as I’m sure this won’t be the last time it comes up. Thanks again and I look forward to further updates and discussions on this topic. |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
I’ve created an issue in the devcontainer/features repository for adding support for OpenTofu, the open source alternative to Terraform and created a Draft PR in anticipation of the first release of OpenTofu.
Questions:
What does Terraform’s change from MPL to BUSL license mean for cases like the devcontainers/features which uses an MIT license that allows commercial-use, while BUSL does not?
Should the PR go as far as removing the terraform feature?
Have we ever removed a feature? How would it work?
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
All reactions