Earlier quoted context omitted.
First, revoke the license. That means they are no longer permitted to redistribute the code. If they then continue to redistribute it, they are committing a copyright violation. That’s when there is cause for a lawsuit.
>First, revoke the license. That means they are no longer permitted to redistribute the code. I wonder how it works. What is the act of revoking an open source license exactly? I assume they simply sent a letter and wrote a blog post? Pretty sure in my country it would have no legal force. Is it different in the US?
Nutanix Objects violates MinIO’s open source license
111–120 of 149 posts
Re: Nutanix Objects violates MinIO’s open source license
#112Earlier quoted context omitted.
Thanks for such an elaborate and informative answer. This is really helpful.
Just one last nuance I'll add to what the parent wrote. It wasn't actually the intent of the AGPL to keep a cloud service from setting up a competitor to your on-prem software. Rather it was to address what some felt was a loophole in the GPL's treatment of copyleft. (Namely that operating software as a service isn't considered distribution in the eyes of the GPL and therefore a cloud provider could add some secret s…
Excellent note, and very accurate!
I can start a company that sells your AGPLv3 software tomorrow. I just have to comply with the terms & conditions. If I'm doing absolutely nothing but operating the software without change, I can satisfy the license by saying "git clone github.com/your/software", done.
Where things get murky is on the concept of linking/derivative works. If I operate a cloud service and make changes to your software to make it use my cloud systems efficiently, those changes have to be open-sourced under AGPLv3. Does that leak too much proprietary information about my systems? Very possibly. That might be enough to stop me. But if I keep going down that road, I end up risking a legal argument that our systems have become so tangled together that parts of my software fall under AGPLv3.
For most companies, this is simply not worth the risk. MongoDB took it one step further with the SSPL:
> you must make the Service Source Code available via network download to everyone at no charge, under the terms of this License. [...] “Service Source Code” means the Corresponding Source for the Program or the modified version, and the Corresponding Source for all programs that you use to make the Program or modified version available as a service, including, without limitation, management software, user interfaces, application program interfaces, automation software, monitoring software, backup software, storage software and hosting software, all such that a user could run an instance of the service using the Service Source Code you make available.
This is basically the anti-AWS license: for AWS to run MongoDB proper, they'd need to expose source for huge amounts of their backplane. It's also not open source under almost anyone's definition.
Re: Nutanix Objects violates MinIO’s open source license
#113Earlier quoted context omitted.
> They may not even think about such mundane things like licensing and stuff Imagine a medical doctor or civil engineer claiming that knowing the laws of their professions is "mudane". That's why no one takes programers seriously. > we are not decision makers. You totally can decide to not work on stuff you are not comfortable with. It's not like there's a shortage of software engineering jobs.
> You totally can decide to not work on stuff you are not comfortable with. I seriously don't get why engineers think they share no responsibility whatsoever for the company they work for. Somehow, they seem to think their situation is comparable to someone picking orders at an Amazon fulfillment center. Thinking they "have no choice" when making 6 figures and having to fight off the recruiters. That's just an easy e…
Re: Nutanix Objects violates MinIO’s open source license
#114Earlier quoted context omitted.
You are being downvoted but I actually think there are some fair points that you are making. We use a lot of FOSS in our company. We pay licenses and contribute very little (our job isn't to improve gitlab or docker, we are shipping a software product on top of that), but I wouldn't know where exactly we are in the legal-illegal spectrum to save my life. I consider myself an employee, not an entrepreneur. If I was an…
If your job is to pick the dependencies, your job is also to understand what picking those dependencies means. It rings hollow to throw your hands up at the license part and say - “not my job”. It is. Understanding the legal risk of that dependency is as important as understanding the technical risk. If your company doesn’t have a license policy, ask for a lawyer to draft that. But I’ve worked at some pretty penny-an…
It's really not the engineers' job to pick the dependencies per se, but to pick them subject to constraints that are laid out by management. There is certainly no ethical quandary or abdication of moral responsibilities in this setup: engineers will pick among choices that are pre-vetted by people who know the legal ramifications best and have a fiduciary responsibility to shareholders to make sure the company does not run afoul of applicable law.
Re: Nutanix Objects violates MinIO’s open source license
#115Re: Nutanix Objects violates MinIO’s open source license
#116I'm shocked anyone would buy something from Nutanix.
> I'm shocked anyone would buy something from Nutanix. Why? The alternative competitors like VMware are better? I'm not up to date on the details but perhaps you may want to elaborate. Thanks. http://techrights.org/2020/04/28/openwashing-vmware-after-gp... https://sfconservancy.org/copyleft-compliance/vmware-lawsuit...
Re: Nutanix Objects violates MinIO’s open source license
#117Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Picking a license indicates what you are willing to have others do with your work. Picking a license indicates what you are willing to have others do with your work without going after them with a threat of handcuffs and prison bars. I might not be willing to do or threaten (government-mediated) violence to someone for being an arsehole, and yet consider them an arsehole.
This seems pretty silly. It's a civil matter, isn't it? Has anyone ever gone to jail for violating an open source license? You could simply choose to not pursue legal action against license violators. Choosing a permissive license and then complaining when people do what you gave them permission to do is just ridiculous.
Re: Nutanix Objects violates MinIO’s open source license
#118Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don’t follow. What case would they have to not follow the AGPL…?
Who said this is the AGPL version of MinIO? It was only a little over a year ago that they changed from Apache to AGPL. MinIO wrote that they only suspected an AGPL violation. Most their accusation was focused on the Apache license. There would still need to be an acknowledgment from the NOTICES file, but that’s it.
Re: Nutanix Objects violates MinIO’s open source license
#119Re: Nutanix Objects violates MinIO’s open source license
#120Earlier quoted context omitted.
Nutanix does not carry EULA or reference even today while continuing to use it. Read Apache v2 attribution clauses.
> while continuing to use it. But the parent to your comment says they don't use it (any more)???