We built our OSS company (Apache 2.0) with Nomad at its core. We provide game server orchestration with a handful of services around it, which could be misconstrued to be considered providing a "competitive offering to HashiCorp." Needless to say, we'll be freezing our Nomad version at the last MPL version because of how vague the license is (intentionally).
We also use CockroachDB which uses BSL, but we're not providing a remotely competitive offering.
I'll likely continue to recommend HashiCorp products (Nomad, Consul, Terraform, and Packer) to anyone who asks my advice, but it's disappointing to hear this change.
I’m the Nomad Eng Lead and while licensing is out of my control we have a lot of users in a similar position to you: not knowing what might someday could be construed competition. I can’t make any promises but will do whatever I can to give you confidence that Nomad is still the right tool for your job.
Clearly you have good intentions and offer your support voluntarily, but
> I can’t make any promises...
really sums it all up in light of these big changes, and simply put the big picture (aka licensing) is what people build and bet their professional lives on.
It sounds to me like GP thinks Nomad still IS the right tool if they’re freezing its version.
Problem is with the license not the tool. It’s nice that you’re trying to do what you can, but it’s like trying to sell roof insurance to a homeless person.
I would migrate off fast. If they are willing to do this with their oldest and most popular tool, I have no doubt they'll change the license of all of their code soon.
We also use CockroachDB which uses BSL, but we're not providing a remotely competitive offering.
I'll likely continue to recommend HashiCorp products (Nomad, Consul, Terraform, and Packer) to anyone who asks my advice, but it's disappointing to hear this change.
We maintain a rudimentary SBOM for anyone curious: https://github.com/rivet-gg/rivet/blob/main/docs/infrastruct...