I'll never understand this attitude. Are some people contributing to open source principally for a kind of quid-pro-quo? I think it's nice when people contribute back, but it's certainly not a motivation for me to open source stuff - other than to set an example. People can do what they want with the software, that's the whole point.
Full disclosure, I'm a shitty open source contributor, but I have some projects on github that I know others have gotten use from, and that makes me happy, not concerned someone is "freeloading".
It’s not quid-pro-quo. At the same time, does that seem ethical (even if it is legal) to build some dysfunctional business models exploiting somebody’s open source for profit and not contributing back?
There are many motivations such as mindshare, not reinventing the wheel and creating standards that motivate people and companies to contribute to open-source. Ripping-off other’s work - even when legally ok - is not right.
The system is designed to foster collaboration and not to enable shitty business models.
> does that seem ethical (even if it is legal) to build some dysfunctional business models exploiting somebody’s open source for profit and not contributing back?
You're describing a thing that happens here, and not even bothering to make an ethical argument against it. People are just supposed to accept the premise, and go on to discuss the implications of it.
> The system is designed to foster collaboration and not to enable shitty business models.
"Spirit of open source" people are arguing that the system wasn't designed at all. You're arguing that open source licenses themselves have little or nothing to do with open source licensing. Instead, it has something vaguely to do with freedom and friendly and collaborative and other nice words. You don't have to be friendly or collaborative to produce either open source or Free Software.
It's not so much quid-pro-quo as freedom. I like creating open source to give users freedom, not to contribute to billion dollar companies jailing everyone's data in SaaS and creating a surveillance dystopia.
I also work on open source full time. I personally am happy to give my work away unconditionally to both freeloaders and contributors and fortunately my employer feels the same way (I am often a freeloader myself on unrelated projects).
Ideally your moneymaker can compete on its own without being dependent upon gatekeeping how the open source part is used. But with project ownership means you can change the rules for your competitors, but it's also a sign that you fear your offering is not competitive enough without the rule change.
> it's also a sign that you fear your offering is not competitive enough without the rule change.
Agreed. It can't mean anything other than that you can't compete on a fair playing field, so you have to add restrictions to lock customers into your service. That you wrote the service is irrelevant since you licensed it as a gift to the world. It's exactly what Free Software was designed to thwart, and exactly what open source was designed to preserve.
I find it brave we had this generation of companies creating open-source business models.
It’s a shame it didn’t work out for them due to bad actors.
The trend I see is for the next generation of good open-source great ideas to be much more protective around their intellectual property. Such a loss, again, due to bad actors.
I don't think the loss is due to bad actors. These actors aren't bad, they're rational. I think the loss is due to giving away things unconditionally without thinking about what that means. Many companies aren't reneging on open source. The ones that are reneging can't compete on what they are selling, so they have to compete on what they're not selling.
Bad actors want to take advantage no matter what. It is the same case as Red Hat recent moves not to provide easy-to-rebrand linux distribution sources. Before they went the extra mile to foster collaboration, but were forced to be less friendly because of freeloaders.
Similar point here. Hashicorp have very good products that are open source as a way to foster collaboration. Freeloaders rebrand it and re-sell with no added value, so Hashicorp are forced to close it (or more like put a timer) to protect their investment.
As I said, I'm a big fan of open-source, and have been working on it for a long time, but am growing more and more frustrated with the current state of things, so much so, that it makes a lot of sense to me that companies that start with great collaboration spirit are forced to tighten their sources due to bad actors in the system.
In this case in particular, their stuff was under MPL (which has copyleft). If there were other companies offering Hashicorp services with hasicorp software, they also are under the obligation to open-source their changes under the MPL to their users, so hashicorp could get back those "contributions" from "freeloaders".
On the other hand, many contributions(PRs) that hashicorp got (for free) are now relicensed to a different license. Who's actually the freeloader here?
It need not be HashiCorp employees. I merged as many (if not more) PRs into Terraform after leaving as I did while working there - the notion of community maintainers was nixed in 2018, though that was never communicated.
So every person who uses Linux for work and doesn't make a kernel contribution is a freeloader? A plant shop keeper running Linux on their work computer is a freeloader? I don't think that's even the intent of the GNU movement let alone all of open source.
I know of precisely zero such companies, and I can't imagine how such a company would even have customers in the first place when Terraform already has a $0 pricetag.
I could maybe understand this for Consul or Vault, since those are actual hostable services that could probably be resold - but I don't know of anyone reselling those, either.
Dozens of them out there
I wonder with great interest which one of these got hashicorp worries about their wallet enough to make this move. Could it be env0 raising 42M earlier this year?
I wouldn't call them a competitor by any stretch; more like a partner. A Terragrunt codebase just wraps Terraform, with the same exact backends (including Hashicorp's SaaS offerings) and the same exact providers and everything.
By any chance are you familiar with Little Free Library (https://littlefreelibrary.org/), those public boxes for people to take or leave books? How would you feel if someone took ALL the books, repeatedly, and then sold them? Would you just shrug and say "well that's totally fine, why is it free in the first place?"
This behavior is antisocial, and completely destroys the offering/concept for everyone.
I have a bootstrapped software company with an open-core product. Meanwhile, a VC-backed startup that has raised over $100m of funding decided to use one of my core open source libraries (which they haven't contributed to in any way) for a critical component of their commercial product, which also overlaps with my product's functionality in some ways.
In response, I eventually made the difficult decision to archive that library's repo and moved its functionality into my main product in a way that prevented external use. So then this startup created a hostile fork of my library, and started to implement functionality that is only present in my own commercial product.
After that, I had to waste several months of unpaid time just to make their fork of my own library no longer easily compatible with recent versions of my own product. Some time later, finally the startup decided to abandon use of my library altogether and wrote their own similar library (which was undoubtedly much easier for them, being able to see all the edge cases my library already handled).
My lesson from all this: I will never create another new large open source product ever again. Too many sociopaths out there for the system to work at all. If I ever decide to make something source-available, I will consider BSL.
And before someone says "why not AGPL?", it is because many companies don't touch AGPL software with a ten-foot pole. My sense is that adopting AGPL for a brand new product typically causes the product to be dead on arrival. That said, I would honestly love to be wrong here.
If there are a lot of AGPL open core / commercial FOSS companies that have been successful, please share examples, I say this genuinely and without snark.
> How would you feel if someone took ALL the books, repeatedly, and then sold them?
Books are rivalrous and excludable goods. If you take all the books, then others can't enjoy them. Open source software is non-rivalrous and (mostly) non-excludable. This is the thing that makes free software possible. And it's also the thing that makes it unlike the book example.
> decided to use one of my core open source libraries (which they haven't contributed to in any way) for a critical component of their commercial product, which also overlaps with my product's functionality in some ways.
This is really terrible, and I'm sorry to hear that it happened to you. But as far as I'm aware this has always been the whole point of "permissive" licenses. Licenses like MIT and (Berkeley) BSD subsidize the private sector with work done by the universities. The core idea, at least compared to GPL licenses, is to allow businesses to profit off of donated work. So while I sympathize with you, it seems like you deliberately chose a license that allowed and encouraged exactly the behavior you saw.
> And before someone says "why not AGPL?", it is because many companies don't touch AGPL software with a ten-foot pole.
This is presumably because businesses don't want to use software that creates in them obligations to give back. But you do want them to give back, or at least you don't want them to take too much. So I feel like there's a fundamental tension here. You're trying to make your project appealing to businesses by telling them they can take it for free and give nothing back. But you're also saying that behavior is "antisocial" and "completely destroys the offering/concept for everyone."
> If you take all the books, then others can't enjoy them.
Sure, and if your company takes a bootstrapped commercial open source product that it didn't develop or contribute to, and then pays several employees a salary to do things which actively reduce that product's ability to develop a sustainable revenue stream, then you definitely risk permanently destroying that open source product.
On a macro level, if many companies do this, the entire ecosystem of open source begins to falter. Hence all the moves to BSL, SSPL, Commons Clause, etc.
I was making an analogy to that. If some people keep taking all the books and selling them, the system falls apart, and people stop putting free books in the box.
> it seems like you deliberately chose a license that allowed and encouraged exactly the behavior you saw.
"Allowed", yes. But nothing in the license I chose (Apache License v2) actively "encourages" the behavior of using a project in a way that actively destroys the project. (Nor does it discourage it either.)
> You're trying to make your project appealing to businesses by telling them they can take it for free and give nothing back. But you're also saying that behavior is "antisocial" and "completely destroys the offering/concept for everyone."
I have no problems with businesses using a project for free and giving nothing back, on its own. I do have a problem with businesses taking a project, and profiting off it while also directly competing with it and/or forking the project in a way that directly kneecaps the project's revenue stream. That is what I am calling antisocial and destructive.
Given the lengths you say you went to to actively stop and sabotage licenced (by you) usage I have to question why you even picked an open source license in the first place?
When I started developing my main product, I didn't know if it would be successful, especially since it involved a paradigm shift in how most people thought of the workflow involved (database schema changes / migrations). So I made it open source to encourage adoption and experimentation.
Meanwhile I put some of the core logic (database schema introspection and diff'ing) in a separate library and repo, since it could be re-used for other applications in case my original product didn't get traction.
Fast forward many years, and the product has been fairly successful. The open source edition of the product has been used by many hundreds of companies and has been downloaded 1.2 million times. And in terms of the paradigm shift, the push/pull schema change semantics that I invented have been copied by several much larger projects, such as Prisma.
The separate library was used by a few companies too (e.g. by Canonical for one notable case), but mostly for internal use-cases, not things that directly competed with my product. I think most folks had enough moral fiber or common sense to understand that using the library in a competitive way would result in the library being killed off. What other choice did I have? I wasn't going to let my business be killed by a hostile fork of my own library.
Yes, you chose the wrong license without understanding its implications.
> My sense is that adopting AGPL for a brand new product typically causes the product to be dead on arrival.
It may hinder adoption (in the corporate world) but not contribution to the source. And if you want to promote the spirit of opensource and make money too, dual licensing with xGPL is the best way to go. MySQL is a successful example of this licensing and business model.
It's pretty telling that you listed only a single example product, and one which was first released twenty-eight years ago, and also one which raised venture capital.
Just because dual-licensing has been successful in a very limited number of exceptional situations, does not mean that it is a reproducible path towards building a sustainable software business.
Also keep in mind:
* MySQL hasn't been an independent business for over 15 years. AFAIK there is no public information on its revenue or profitability.
* Much of Oracle's recent work on the product has been on MySQL Heatwave, which is only available as a managed service.
* Most MySQL Community Edition commits come from Oracle.
* Meanwhile the company behind MariaDB, arguably a more "open" fork of MySQL, is having financial problems and may well end up having its stock de-listed soon.
* The non-open-source Business Source License was originally created by MariaDB for their MaxScale product. The license's existence is fully backed by Monty Widenius, original creator of MySQL.
To be clear, I'm not saying any of the above to criticize Oracle or MariaDB. Rather, just pointing out that a general statement of "dual licensing with xGPL is the best way to go" is not really backed by the facts on the ground.
I must ask, do you run a commercial open source business yourself?
MySQL is a successful product that was sold to Sun / Oracle for a BILLION dollars. MariaDB and Percona Server are good examples of competing businesses produced from a commercially successful GPL opensource software (MySQL):
The commercial success of a product totally depends on the business model you come up with, whatever be its opensource (or not) license.
Corporates have a vested interest in promoting the propaganda that only a non-xGPL opensource license can be commercialised successfully simply because they cannot freely steal the source code of a competing xGPL licensed software.
The real value of an FSF license, like the AGPL, is that it is designed to protect the copyright holders, and its users, "right to repair". And thus, it cannot be closed source by anyone (apart from the original copyright holders) once released under the said license (even if future versions are closed source, the old version under xGPL remain opensource perpetually). Other open source license (that are less stringent) are prioritised to increase developer contribution. Source code under such license can thus be closed-source even from the original copyright holder.
But again, commercial success totally depends on the business model you come up with, irrespective of your license. The right license and the right business model will empower each other. Or cripple your business.
> MySQL is a successful product that was sold to Sun / Oracle for a BILLION dollars
"Successful exit" is not the same thing as a sustainable product or business model. I mentioned several key concerns in my previous reply, which you didn't address here at all. Specifically, if dual-licensed GPL was the best way to go, it wouldn't be the case that entities outside of MySQL/Oracle (e.g. AWS) were capturing a huge amount of MySQL's value/revenue, possibly exceeding that of the product's own revenue. Why else would development be shifted to the managed-service-only, closed-source MySQL Heatwave product?
> MariaDB and Percona Server are good examples of competing businesses
Yes, I'm very familiar with the MySQL ecosystem (click my profile). I mentioned several concerns specifically about MariaDB in my previous reply and you did not address those at all.
You also didn't answer my question about whether you've ever run a commercial open source business, so I must conclude that you haven't. I do, and frankly I don't appreciate when other people -- who seemingly don't havie direct personal experience in this area -- attempt to confidently lecture me about how I supposedly chose the wrong license.
Listing Red Hat in your reply also seems a bit ridiculous, given all the latest contention in that space over Red Hat threatening to cancel customer subscriptions if they republish RHEL's sources. If GPL-based software was the panacea you claim, things like this wouldn't be happening with ever-increasing frequency over the past couple years.
> ... if dual-licensed GPL was the best way to go, it wouldn't be the case that entities outside of MySQL/Oracle (e.g. AWS) were capturing a huge amount of MySQL's value/revenue ... Why else would development be shifted to the managed-service-only, closed-source MySQL Heatwave product?
And do you realise that you are comparing corporates with two completely different philosophies and business model? It's absolutely in character for Oracle to use the loophole in the older GPL (that has since been fixed by the AGPL) to try to make MySQL closed-source again by offering it through a SaaS infrastructure. Oracle has never been a champion of the opensource movement, while the original owners of MySQL were. It is the same with IBM, who are now the owners of Red Hat Linux. And that shows in how they ran / run their business.
We are discussing about opensource software business models only. Not open-source and closed-source ones (it should be a no-brainer that closed-source software business models are the most successful and profitable ones).
> I mentioned several concerns specifically about MariaDB in my previous reply and you did not address those at all.
Simply because it is irrelevant to our discussion. The success or failures of MySQL or MariaDB or Oracle's MySQL was/is not just solely because of its license and there are many other factors behind it (for example, MariaDB earned a lot of scorn from open source developers because they felt betrayed after its original source - MySQL - ended up in Oracle's hand). Nevertheless, MySQL is a great example of a commercially successful example of a dual-licensed GPL product.
I have enough business experience, and a good understanding of open source software to understand its strength and limitation in a commercial setting. Honestly, you do need a lecture for not being able to see the obvious:
1. As per your own confessions, a competitor was able to use your open source code without sharing subsequent work on the codebase. This would obviously have never happened with the AGPL license, as the license compels others who distribute the software (even as SaaS) to share the source code.
2. You tried to change the codebase and / or license to make it more difficult for them to fork your code and use it. This shows your own confusion regarding the open source philosophy and your business model. Your code was used by others in the spirit of the open source license you chose. And yet, you continue to assert you are the wronged party?
3. It is also easy to see that you (wrongly) chose a permissive opensource license out of self-interest to your business (hoping to attract more developer contributions and then close source the product later when it becomes profitable, just as your competitor did) than out of an equal commitment to the open source philosophy. Your competitor outwitted you because you weren't knowledgable about licenses, your own business goals and business model.
> Honestly, you do need a lecture for not being able to see the obvious
You are making a ton of reading comprehension errors, as well as completely incorrect assumptions about the situation I described. And then lecturing me about those incorrect assumptions. Cool cool.
> a competitor was able to use your open source code without sharing subsequent work on the codebase.
No, that's not what I said at all. I described how a company used one of my open source libraries in a way which directly competed with my primary product. The problem here is they did share their changes, and those changes included functionality which was already present only in the enhanced paid closed source edition of my product.
This is why I said it was a "hostile fork" of my library: users could combine the open source edition of my product with the hostile fork of my library to get functionality for free that normally is only in my paid product.
I absolutely understood that this situation was possible with a permissive license. I just did not expect a company to do this so soon after my paid product launched, especially as the product wasn't even financially successful yet by that time.
> This would obviously have never happened with the AGPL license
I can say with absolute certainty, if my product had an AGPL license, it would not have succeeded in any form. Many of my largest users do not adopt AGPL software under any circumstances.
> You tried to change the codebase and / or license to make it more difficult for them to fork your code and use it.
The former, not the latter. I never tried to change the license, nor said anything about that here. I changed the codebase so that the previously-external library was now an internal package instead of a standalone repo, and refactored things to prevent compatibility with the hostile fork.
> Your code was used by others in the spirit of the open source license you chose. And yet, you continue to assert you are the wronged party?
My code was used in a way which negatively impacted the revenue stream which would pay for further development of that code. As I've said elsewhere in this subthread at https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37084057, the license is entirely neutral about that topic: it neither encourages nor discourages such use. However, I assert that common sense should typically discourage people from such antisocial behavior, because you can reasonably expect that kneecapping the revenue stream for a project can result in that project either getting killed off or radically changing shape in response.
> you (wrongly) chose a permissive opensource license out of self-interest to your business (hoping to attract more developer contributions
I never said anything about "hoping to attract more developer contributions" and that has never been my motivation for open sourcing this work. I described why I chose an open source license directly in a sibling subthread here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37083698
> and then close source the product later when it becomes profitable, just as your competitor did
You're just completely inventing false details here out of thin air!
My product has two editions, a FOSS one and an enhanced paid one; the latter is closed-source. Both editions already existed at the time of the events I'm describing here. Both are still actively developed and supported, and today they're widely used by companies you are definitely familiar with.
The library in question was one component of this product, not the product itself.
Meanwhile the startup that made the hostile fork of the library runs a managed service (SaaS).
> Your competitor outwitted you because you weren't knowledgable about licenses, your own business goals and business model.
I guess it's easy to conclude whatever offensive thing you'd like when you just make up all the details instead of reading the thread or asking questions about the situation!
Anyway this is completely off the rails of my original point, which is that there are multiple kinds of "freeloaders". Some of them actively destroy the thing they're taking for free, which was why I made the Little Free Library analogy. Just because something is "free" (as in beer) doesn't mean there should be an expectation that the thing will continue to exist in that form once abusive bad actors exploit the free-ness of the offering.
We're seeing this play out over and over again across many FOSS projects, and my prediction is this trend will only accelerate.
> The real value of an FSF license, like the AGPL, is that it was designed to protect the copyright holders, and its users, “right to repair”. And thus, it cannot be closed source by anyone (apart from the original copyright holders) once released under the said license
17 USC Sec. 203 suggests that may not be strictly true in the US.
Thanks for the post. I’m sorry you went through this with bad actors in open-source.
I agree fully with your *GPL point of view and have seen that in practice many time.
It is in the written guidance for open-source in the company I work for, along the lines “for GPL-like licenses, that’s a ‘no’ by default, unless you follow this very complicated process to get approvals from many people”.
> In other words, free as in freedom, but not free as in beer.
That's the Free Software slogan, not open source. The only relationship between the two is that open source can easily be relicensed into Free Software (or proprietary, or whatever.)
There's nothing in open source about friendliness or collaborative development. I'm not forced to take your advice or contributions just because I'm open source, so how could that have anything to do with it?
> That's the Free Software slogan, not open source. The only relationship between the two is that open source can easily be relicensed into Free Software (or proprietary, or whatever.)
> There's nothing in open source about friendliness or collaborative development.
Your view of the meanings of "free" and "open source" software is very literal and narrow. I'm not trying to debate the technical definitions of those terms, because frankly, I don't care and I don't think they matter in this discussion.
The crux of what I am saying is this:
A company may choose to share their source code for others to benefit from, under the hope that large players will contribute back in some way rather than use the situation to the disadvantage of the upstream company.
In other words, they might hope to:
* Let hobbyists learn from and use their code for free.
* Let competing companies use their code, as long as they contribute something back (money, bugfixes, festures, community support, QA).
* Make their employees happy.
and they may not hope to:
* Empower other large companies to freeload--ie, profit without contributing back at all.
Yes, I understand that permissive open source licenses allow freeloading in a legal sense. That does not mean the upstream companies have to be happy about it, much in the same way that you're allowed to use your office's shared kitchen to microwave fish, but your colleagues do not have to be happy about it.
> That's the Free Software slogan, not open source. The only relationship between the two is that open source can easily be relicensed into Free Software (or proprietary, or whatever.)
While you are correct that the Free Software Movement has slogans like "free as in freedom" and has a definition based on "the four freedoms," the Open Source Movement also recognizes and advocates for "Software Freedom" as well.
"We build a world where the freedoms and opportunities of Open Source software can be enjoyed by all." [1]
Software that is licensed under Apache 2.0, MIT, BSD, or any of the other so-called "permissive" licenses is labeled "Free Software" by the Free Software Movement as-is. It does not require a "relicense" to become Free Software.
Said another way: you don't have to use a copyleft license like the GPL to qualify for the "Free Software" label.
It is just a different name for the same thing, because there was a group that developed a vocabulary before another group existed.
Originally it's "free as in speech" not "free as in freedom"
But BSL is definitely not free as in speech. So if it's neither free as beer, so what part of it is "free"?
Yeah, it always confuses me when people release something under e.g. the BSD or MIT license and then complain about "freeloaders."
It's totally understandable to not want companies to profit off of proprietary, closed-source forks of your software. I get it! But there are licenses that you can use to stop that from ever happening (namely [A]GPL). Why not use one of those?
It's because a lot of them were culturally anti-copyleft, but had never read the licenses or the reasons behind them.
Copyleft is politically scary to some people, so they refuse to acknowledge it other than to call people zealots. Explicit licenses protect you. Open source spirits don't. Everyone should be honest: the only reason a lot of people prefer open source is because they want to preserve a rug-pull option. Then they get surprised with it's Amazon pulling the rug on them.
Disclosure: I work for Amazon, but I've been a copyleft advocate for a quarter century.
Indeed, copyleft can be politically scary. Especially when for-profit companies co-opt copyleft to drive licensing revenue by selling alternative license arrangements [1]. If all those who adopt copyleft licenses pledged to commitment to community-oriented GPL enforcement principles [2] I think that it would be a lot less scary. Unfortunately we've seen "copyleft trolls" that try to wield copyleft as a weapon, either for profit or to make other demands that are not helpful to the community.
Copyleft licenses are, indeed, protective licenses from my perspective. Or, they should be.
An aside, when it comes to "Amazon pulling the rug" -- what exact incident are you referring to?
I've been into free software since I was a kid, so all of this is very familiar to me. You've done a great job of breaking it down! Thanks for this and similar comments on this post. I hope they clear things up for some people. I feel that GPL (and AGPL, even more so) often does not get a fair shot, and that's a shame.
GPLs are a bit complicated for companies because (personal opinion alert) I THINK it is ok if you’re a company, member of a particular community, to be able to embed that on some product and not be mandated to open-source the whole thing.
IMHO not everything needs to be open-source, but in many case it just makes so much sense that is a dumb idea to reinvent the wheel.
Many projects are succesfull this way. One I can think of is LLVM.
Projects are free to choose permissive licenses like BSD.
Companies are then free to use the code however they like and not contribute back in any way.
Projects are then free to be annoyed by this because they hoped that companies would contribute time and/or resouces out their own good will.
Finally, projects are free to move to "business source" licenses because good will didn't work, so they need to utilize the legal system to ensure that large companies help sustain the project.
Describing changing to a source-available licenses as "now utilizing the legal system" is strange.
Projects choosing a permissive license like BSD is utilizing the legal system. BSD is a contract, a copyright license. It imposes restrictions/limitations/obligations, which can/would be enforced by a court.
Come on, you're unfairly quoting bits of my sentences in order to fuss over something unrelated to my point.
I said:
> so they need to utilize the legal system to ensure that large companies help sustain the project.
No shit they were using the legal system before with the BSD license. I am saying that they are now using the legal system to ensure companies contribute, which is not something the BSD license did.
Have you ever set lenient guidelines, people took advantage of them in a way you didn't like, so you were forced to tighten your guidelines in a way you didn't originally want to?
eg: a professor establishes a generous late homework policy, which most students use reasonably, except a few who decide to turn in everthing on the last day of the term and make the TA's lives hell. Prof is allowed to be disappointed and then adjust their future terms' policies to be more specific (eg "submit assignments max 5 days late").
For this analogy to work, it also needs to include the professor advertising their course and attracting good-will primarily on the basis of their generous policy, and then bait-and-switching involved participants when they later decided they didn't like it.
The professor could advertise their course this way for Term 1, realize their policy isn't working as intended, and then change their policy (and advertising) as of Term 2. That's not a bait and switch. There was no promise that their course would have the generous original policy in for all terms in perpetuity.
As far as I can tell, you are allowed to fork HashiCorp's code up until the point of license change, and continue to use it as you like, rebrand it as a new project, whatever. I could be wrong, but I don't think HashiCorp ever said "we will never ever change our license."
Ehh.. with terraform it's more like putting out a bootstrapped "need a penny, take a penny. have a penny, leave a penny" jar in front of the register, occasionally putting your own pennies into it (while other people leave theirs as well), then, after the jar starts to overflow, and you realized no one was giving your business extra money, you decide to take the jar (now a significant chunk of change, thanks in large part to the good will of others)
It is, by definition, impossible to use and not contribute. To use is to contribute. As soon as you install a Hashicorp product, before you even run it, you have already contributed.
As much as I love open-souce, I get the point that there are a bunch of freeloaders using stuff and not contributing back.