Change from maas -> canonical ownership breaks OpenTofu

[sempervictus]

This should not be happening and does not happen when using the originally named maas/maas provider:

╷
│ Error: Failed to query available provider packages
│ 
│ Could not retrieve the list of available versions for provider canonical/maas: provider registry registry.opentofu.org does not have a provider named registry.opentofu.org/canonical/maas
│ 
│ All modules should specify their required_providers so that external consumers will get the correct providers when using a module. To see which modules are currently depending on canonical/maas, run the following command:
│     tofu providers
│ 
│ If you believe this provider is missing from the registry, please submit a issue on the OpenTofu Registry https://github.com/opentofu/registry/issues/

is this an omission or are Canonical's users supposed to utilize IBMs Terraform?

[troyanov]

We never added MAAS Terraform provider to the registry.opentofu.org and it ended up there because OpenTofu copied it from the Terraform registry. At the moment we are not maintaining existence of MAAS Terraform provider there.

[sempervictus]

Does that mean that Canonical does not support the Linux Foundation's Open Source effort and specifically forces users into the license-encumbered IBM/RedHat-owned Terraform workflow?

Also pretty sure that the correct tag is not completed but wontfix - completion would entail maintenance in the Open Source repository referenced in the issue vs the proprietary one currently supported.

[ghost]

Hey folks, OpenTofu maintainer here. I would like to clarify that we did not copy anything from the Terraform registry since that would be against their terms of service. The OpenTofu registry is merely an index of providers available on GitHub as of ~November last year. The binaries are still served from GitHub releases and are fully authored by and are under the control their respective owners. New providers since the initial indexing (such as canonical/maas) need to be added here, which can be done by anyone. GPG public keys can be published on the same link, but that needs to be done by a member of the organization owning the provider.

[troyanov]

Does that mean that Canonical does not support the Linux Foundation's Open Source effort and specifically forces users into the license-encumbered IBM/RedHat-owned Terraform workflow?

@sempervictus I didn't say that. I said that at the moment we are not maintaining existence of MAAS Terraform provider there.

Also pretty sure that the correct tag is not completed but wontfix - completion would entail maintenance in the Open Source repository referenced in the issue vs the proprietary one currently supported.

Thank you, this was a mistake and it is fixed now.

@janosdebugs I apologize; I didn't mean to imply that OpenTofu copied Terraform's registry or violated their terms of service. I was not fully aware of how exactly OpenTofu fetched this information.

[ghost]

@troyanov thank you. Can I ask you to consider submitting the provider and uploading the GPG key? OpenTofu uses the Terraform provider API and we had zero compatibility complaints so far. The submission takes about 5 minutes on GitHub only, you do not need to create an account and give us access to your GitHub organization. Apart from the GPG key, we work entirely on public data.

[troyanov]

@janosdebugs I am definitely looking forward to adding MAAS provider to the OpenTofu registry, however I by no means an official voice on this at the moment.

[ghost]

@troyanov that's understandable, officially supporting both Terraform and OpenTofu would mean more work. However, just having the GPG key uploaded would already go a long way towards enabling users.

[troyanov]

canonical/terraform-provider-maas was added to the OpenTofu registry https://github.com/opentofu/registry/issues/747