> “for_each” implementation for “import” blocks,<p>Well, I'm officially on board with this project. We've been told this is <i>impossible</i> for years.<p>Seems like this is pretty air tight for OpenTofu, but cease and desist letters are usually hoping to intimidate you into action anyway.<p>edit: looks like I may have confused import blocks with provider blocks... please give me for_each support for provider blocks! please!
An official apology from the author of the article that sparked the entire discussion - <a href="https://twitter.com/mjasay/status/1778454498664690108" rel="nofollow">https://twitter.com/mjasay/status/1778454498664690108</a><p>It takes guts to publicly admit you were wrong.
Weird strategy from Hashicorp. The amount of code that they claimed was infringed is tiny. And from what I can tell, is not algorithmically significant. It's such small ball.
I think matt has lost any credibility he had i have been following since openstack and the beginning of containers days and it has all been downhill from there...
The argument OpenTofu and their lawyers are making is that they didn’t copy the “removed” statement, which is under the new BUSL license, they looked at the “moved” statement (licensed originally under MPL) and derived their own removed statement from that. Maybe true but I can’t help but wonder if there was any “parallel construction” involved.<p>If you look at the PR in OpenTofu:
<a href="https://github.com/opentofu/opentofu/pull/1158">https://github.com/opentofu/opentofu/pull/1158</a><p>It claims to fix this issue:
<a href="https://github.com/opentofu/opentofu/issues/1032">https://github.com/opentofu/opentofu/issues/1032</a><p>Which in turn references this issue in terraform:
<a href="https://github.com/hashicorp/terraform/issues/34402">https://github.com/hashicorp/terraform/issues/34402</a><p>I’m not a lawyer and have no idea who is right or wrong but I understand why Hashicorp is scrutinizing this.