Hi! On Fri, 2023-08-18 at 08:07:44 -0300, Antonio Terceiro wrote: > FWIW, I have been maintaining vagrant in Debian for several years.
BTW, thank you for having done that, it's been much appreciated! > TL;DR: I will not be maintaining vagrant anymore. > On Fri, Aug 18, 2023 at 02:56:28PM +0900, Kentaro HAYASHI wrote: > > * What was the outcome of this action? > > Plan A. […] > > Plan B. […] > On Fri, Aug 18, 2023 at 09:37:54AM +0000, gwili.stif...@easymailer.live wrote: > > Plan C. […] There's perhaps a: Plan D. - Package Vagrunt (https://github.com/vaagrunt/vagrunt) a fork of Vagrant, that is stated should remain free software. And as it does not have a CLA, if it gets several contributions it will be increasingly hard to relicense. - Transition from vagrant to vagrunt via a transitional package. (We use Vagrant at work, and I'm not planning on relying on a non-free tool, so a fork would do, otherwise I'd have to look into alternatives for us to switch to.) > Hopefully, being burned a second time will teach me to not put my > volunteer time in non-copyleft packages provided by a single > corporation. While it's certainly true that contributing into a project with single-corp-control + non-copyleft has uncertain odds to take, at least everyone is on the same footing. I think, as Lucas has mentioned, the most problematic aspect in this kind of cases is where there are both single-corp-control and a CLA, as that's what grants the possibility of a relicense and this asymmetrical relationship, which could have happened here as well even with a copyleft license. (Out of principle I never sign CLAs for my volunteer work, with the exception of the one for the FSF due to its nature and its assurances, but which I supposedly rescinded some time ago anyway.) Thanks, Guillem
