@phrawzty@miah honestly - vault is a piece of software that could arguably have a price associated with it. It’s usually the most critical piece of software which contains your companies secrets, and it wouldn’t be hard to argue that paying for it would help ensure it survives and gets funded to stay secure.
It makes no sense imho what they did with TF, it’s just a templating engine and API wrapper…keep that and packer open to keep good will and the community happy. Then explain you need to fund vault, consul and nomad. Those servers need full time paid engineers to keep them safe and reliable.
@phrawzty I agree, I don't think the opentf team should wait for Hasicorp to respond. They should fork and move on. But I'm not involved in the org so my thoughts don't really matter. I just want to use and work with actually open source software, and it's communities.
Similarly, I have work to get done that would really benefit from a tool like Vault but I won't get involved with Hasicorp at this point. I don't have the skill set to maintain a Vault fork and nobody is talking about forking it.
@miah I don't see any particular reason for HC to walk this back, tbqh. The fork will either be "successful" in which case it becomes an entirely different product over time, or it won't, in which case it fades away. Neither case requires HC to alter their course. 🤷