Following the announcement, many seem to think that creating community binary distributions is necessary, or at least needed by some people.
Thus, I’m opening this topic so we can all share our opinions around mainly two subjects:
- Should we create a community distribution?
- What would be needed to do so?
And here are my personal views on the matter.
Should we create a community distribution?
As far as I’m concerned, I’m using Habitat for personal use, I’ve mostly used it experimentally at work (to show what it can do, and what problem it could solve), and managed to use it in production only once (it’s still used there AFAICT). I know for sure that the company that has Habitat in production will likely not be willing to pay Chef a subscription (that’s a shame, but you know ).
I’ve been trying to advocate a lot for Habitat in France (Paris region) in the last years since I’ve been involved in the community and the product itself. I would like to try to help Habitat gain traction here, but I fear that the new binary license might not help.
It’s not that I don’t believe it’s the right choice (I’m all for Free Software), rather that Habitat is still young, and it’s really hard to explain its value and have people try and use it, so if I tell them they will have to pay for it too… The experimental provision look cool, but I suspect the license wall will still taint the thing.
That is why I think it would be really nice to have a community driven distribution, available free of charge, but without most of the technical help that a company like Chef could bring to the table.
What would be needed to create a “fork”?
What I have in mind is something as close as possible to the upstream, so that apart from trademarks/legal, everything would feel and be the same.
I think that we should
- Come up with new names for Habitat. It’s a shame because Habitat is really the best word that describes it
- Install our own builder fork with a proxy on the public bldr to benefit from the unique core-plans code base and harts, I suspect that (although IANAL) the harts are licensed on their own terms since it’s other software that is packaged in them.
Sharing the core-plans is really vital IMHO, because we should still all contribute to the same plans instead of forking the effort, which would result in poor plans quality on one of the sides. Also, it clearly is not the goal of the change of lincensing as far as I understood it.
For the name, I though we could use Nest and the nest command with obviously the same args/opts etc. I don’t think we have to rename builder, since it’s a sub-component of Chef Habitat (as per trademark policy, only Chef Habitat and Habitat are trademarks).
I’m not sure how we would host the builder and our CI things, but this feels like implementation details that would become important if enough people are willing to make this move forward
Thanks for reading me, and long live Habitat & co!