Talk:Vagrant (software)

Closed-source components
HashiCorp claims, "Vagrant remains and always will be a liberally licensed open source project". But the Vagrant installer for Windows includes the useful closed-source "Vagrant Share" add-on. And, to use that installer, you must agree to Vagrant Share's EULA and you must install Vagrant Share.

Even once it's installed, you don't have to use Vagrant Share. If you don't want to use it, simply don't run the  command.

How should we describe Vagrant? One option is to describe it as "mixed proprietary and open-source", similar to how we describe PDFCreator. I have done so for now, but I am not sure that it's the best choice.

What are your thoughts?

Kind regards, —Unforgettableid (talk) 03:35, 30 December 2014 (UTC)


 * I think we should just write what it says in the licence:


 * Vagrant core is licenced under a MIT licence;
 * the "Vagrant Share" component for windows is proprietary.
 * The way the installer works does not change the licencing terms of the source code.

89.97.108.159 (talk) 09:02, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

Second sentence (Solved)
The core idea behind it lies in the fact ...

This is no way to commence the second sentence of the lead. Besides the sophomoric diction, it's hard to see how this leads into encyclopedic claims. &mdash; MaxEnt 18:30, 7 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Already solved.Tech201805 (talk)

Abandoned user draft
Please would an interested editor assess the material added at User:Shrenujgandhi/Vagrant, incorporate what is useful, blank the page as WP:COPYARTICLE, and leave a note here when done?

Ditto with User:Aslingwa/Vagrants. – Fayenatic  L ondon 21:42, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

Viagrunts fork
The provided Github link now returns 404. Did it die? 188.190.73.30 (talk) 22:48, 29 December 2023 (UTC)