I mainly wanted to focus on the "civil" than "war" aspect of the possible schism.
my objection is that warfare involves people intentionally harming each other, and that doesn't seem to be what's going on here. it's not that war is a more extreme version of the situation; it's that it's directionally different
rather, hashicorp is struggling to not go bankrupt, so they've decided to switch to making a proprietary product instead of an open-source products; and terraform users, naturally enough, are reluctant to make their infrastructure vulnerable to a proprietary software license. hashicorp is not intentionally harming terraform users, and terraform users are not intentionally harming hashicorp
they're just not continuing their previous cooperation
Such hypocrisy, attacking others for "rhetoric" that needs to be "dialled back a bit" when you're every bit as guilty of the exact. same. thing.
the comment you are referring to, for anyone who is interested, concerns the question of whether or not there is a higher standard of morality to which legislation can be held, or whether legislation itself is the ultimate moral authority, or whether there is in fact no objective standard of morality at all. anyone who is interested in that kind of thing can read it at https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37147305
i have no idea what you could possibly mean by 'focus on the "civil"'. it's good that people are being civil to one another, isn't it? then why are you criticizing them?
I don't think it will work, but I think it's good of them to try.
I'm still not sure which of the latter two was the intent of the comment I was responding to
