Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Minio Changes License to AGPL

github.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

121–130 of 150 posts

Re: Minio Changes License to AGPL

#121

Post by jen20 »

random5634 wrote: post #116
wegs2 wrote: post #89

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't think AGPL is a perfect license, but I do think it's the best. The flaws it has are things like the poorly-written patent clause, verbosity, ambiguity on concepts like linking, and general lack of elegance. It runs into a lot of corner cases around where code looks like data or data looks like code; there isn't a clean separation. GPLv2 was a brilliantly-drafted license. For all those failings, AGPL seems lik…

Except of course the corporate folks who are licensing under AGPL who can and do then take contributors code and make available a commercial version that no one else is allowed to make available. AGPL is a poison pill license that creates a very distorted open source model - better example is "shared source" - you can look but can't really use it in you own ops. The whole AGPLv3 / GPLv3 thing was such a mess - a big…

> Except of course the corporate folks who are licensing under AGPL who can and do then take contributors code and make available a commercial version that no one else is allowed to make available.

This is only true if there is a CLA, and contributors sign it.

Re: Minio Changes License to AGPL

#122

Post by Benjamin_Dobell »

hda2 wrote: post #119
Benjamin_Dobell wrote: post #113

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because "re-licensing" isn't a thing. If you (or anyone else) can point me to a single piece of legislation in any jurisdiction that has a concept of "re-licensing" I'll be very surprised. In fact, I'd be quite surprised to see any ruling from a country that practices common law mention "re-licensing". It's simply not a thing. These licenses are agreements you accept in order to be granted rights that you would other…

You're conflating two separate issues together: 1. Re-licesing the whole project is absolutely a thing. As authors of minio, the project has copyright over the combined work and are free to relicense code as long as they don't violate the Apache 2.0. Seeing that the AGPL does not violate this license. This is exactly what minio has done. 2. Unilaterally changing the license of files contributed under Apache 2.0 is no…

I'm not conflating anything.

> 1. Re-licesing the whole project is absolutely a thing.

Again, it's really not. Seriously. I don't like the idea of asking someone else to waste their time over a simple disagreement, however you're publicly providing incorrect advice and it's harmful. Thus, please point me to something, anything with some legal bearing that mentions relicensing.

What you mean is "sublicense". They're free to sublicense.

Why are they free to do this? Because the Apache 2.0 specifically grants this right. That's it. There's no implied right otherwise.

Relicensing presumably means (again, not a thing with any legal meaning) to repeat the process somehow. They can't, they don't have that right, it was never granted to them by the contributors.

Projects do change their license. This is achieved by explicit consent of all contributors. This is frequently impossible (or at least impractical) for open source projects unless the project has a Contributor License Agreement where the IP itself (and all corresponding rights) is assigned, thus permitting the project owners a different license than what they're granting end-users.

Note: Different jurisdictions interpret assigning rights differently. Many jurisdictions state that it's not possible, and the best you can do is grant a license that's effectively similar whilst simultaneously agreeing not to utilise the IP yourself in any way inconsistent with that license.

If you read my original comment, I've explicitly pointed out they can also apply the AGPL. What I've said is they can't remove the Apache 2.0. Which they have!

People need to be able to see that those contributions were made under the Apache 2.0 license, because the best Minio can do is offer those contributions with those same terms. As mentioned above, because the Apache 2.0 allows it, they can sublicense (introduce further restrictions) i.e. simultaneously apply the AGPLv3. However, they cannot ignore the terms of the Apache 2.0.

This is relevant because the Apache 2.0 contains restrictions that simply are not present in the AGPLv3. One such restriction is to not remove the Apache 2.0 license - so Minio aren't off to a great start.

There are other restrictions too, most prominently 4b.

Why am I harping on about 4b? Because quite frankly it's an incredibly stupid clause. However, like it or not, it is a clause and a condition of the Apache 2.0 license. In my eyes, it's such a stupid clause that people should outright stop using the Apache 2.0. However, seems as people tend to not read the license, or just ignore it, then sadly I can't see that happening.

Re: Minio Changes License to AGPL

#123

Post by chillfox »

bgwhn wrote: post #20
slaymaker1907 wrote: post #2

IANAL, but this may be illegal. I noticed that they have a large number of contributors yet seem to have no contributor agreement with ownership assignment. This generally means that any license change would need the agreement of every past contributor (as it should). There are good reasons (for the primary author(s)) to enforce copyright assignment for contributions. Besides legal issues, I consider changes like thi…

What's more concerning IMO is that despite the fact that I can't find a CLA, their pricing page claims that if you buy their support contract that they'll give you the software under a "Commercial" license: https://min.io/pricing

They might just have figured that none of the people with standing is actually going to sue them.

A license is only as strong as the likelihood and severity of consequences.

Re: Minio Changes License to AGPL

#124

Post by hda2 »

Benjamin_Dobell wrote: post #122
hda2 wrote: post #119

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're conflating two separate issues together: 1. Re-licesing the whole project is absolutely a thing. As authors of minio, the project has copyright over the combined work and are free to relicense code as long as they don't violate the Apache 2.0. Seeing that the AGPL does not violate this license. This is exactly what minio has done. 2. Unilaterally changing the license of files contributed under Apache 2.0 is no…

I'm not conflating anything. > 1. Re-licesing the whole project is absolutely a thing. Again, it's really not. Seriously. I don't like the idea of asking someone else to waste their time over a simple disagreement, however you're publicly providing incorrect advice and it's harmful. Thus, please point me to something, anything with some legal bearing that mentions relicensing. What you mean is "sublicense". They're f…

Now I'm just confused. Do you believe it is okay for minio to unilaterally - and without prior permission from contributors - change the license of their project to the AGPL while also preserving the license of thirdparty Apache-licensed contributions?

If you do, then we are in complete agreement.

If you do not, do you believe that there are two distinct copyrightable works involved here? (the individual Apache-licensed files and the whole combined work) Or do you believe there is only one single copyrightable work and each contributor has copyright over his part of that work?

Re: Minio Changes License to AGPL

#125

Post by khuey »

chillfox wrote: post #123
bgwhn wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What's more concerning IMO is that despite the fact that I can't find a CLA, their pricing page claims that if you buy their support contract that they'll give you the software under a "Commercial" license: https://min.io/pricing

They might just have figured that none of the people with standing is actually going to sue them. A license is only as strong as the likelihood and severity of consequences.

They have venture investors. YOLOing IP law like that is not going to pass any sort of due diligence.

Re: Minio Changes License to AGPL

#126

Post by ksec »

jchw wrote: post #57

I don’t necessarily think AGPL is the best license, but I am very glad it’s AGPL catching on and not SSPL and friends. I’ve spoken my piece in recent threads already, but I just think this is more friendly to the FOSS community even if it’s not perfect.

It is interesting that the whole AGPL perception change in OSS and small business all thanks to Amazon. I guess we could now call AGPL as Amazon GPL.

And last time I checked there doesn't seems to a A-LGPL or L-AGPL type of license.

Re: Minio Changes License to AGPL

#127

Post by chithanh »

eloff wrote: post #49
enriquto wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> You only have a problem if you modify anything in the source code of minio that you host. And even in that case, you only need to share your modifications of minio, not anything about the rest of your system. Doesn't seem too much of a problem, to begin with.

A lot of companies I've worked for had a blanket ban on AGPL. This is not a problem with the license, it's a problem with those companies. But it's still going to be a pain for the people who work there.

Most companies who publish AGPL software also offer a paid commercial license, so it is accept AGPL (and contribute in kind) or pay (and contribute in money).

I don't think this is bad forcing companies to choose between these two (or abandon the software), and they are fully responsible to making lives of people who work there easier.

Re: Minio Changes License to AGPL

#128

Post by MichaelMoser123 »

there is the AGPL [1] and the GNU AGPL [2]

now the AGPL is designed to block "Application Service Provider" hole. (closed source shops from using modified GPL source code without publishing their changes, as it is only hosted on a single network destination)

Can someone please explain the differences between AGPL and GNU AGPL in this respect? Things are now very fragmented in the land of licenses; is there a resource that compares what they all imply?

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Affero_General_Public_License

[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GNU_Affero_General_Public_Lice...

[3] https://stackoverflow.com/questions/2127246/difference-betwe...

Re: Minio Changes License to AGPL

#129

Post by tareqak »

MichaelMoser123 wrote: post #128

there is the AGPL [1] and the GNU AGPL [2] now the AGPL is designed to block "Application Service Provider" hole. (closed source shops from using modified GPL source code without publishing their changes, as it is only hosted on a single network destination) Can someone please explain the differences between AGPL and GNU AGPL in this respect? Things are now very fragmented in the land of licenses; is there a resource…

From your link [1],

> Compatibility with the GPL

> Both versions of the AGPL, like the corresponding versions of the GNU GPL on which they are based, are strong copyleft licenses. In the Free Software Foundation's judgment, the added requirement in section 2(d) of Affero GPL v1 made it incompatible with the otherwise nearly identical GPLv2. That is to say, one cannot distribute a single work formed by combining components covered by each license.

> By contrast, GPLv3 and AGPLv3 each include clauses (in section 13 of each license) that together achieve a form of mutual compatibility for the two licenses. These clauses explicitly allow the "conveying" of a work formed by linking code licensed under the one license against code licensed under the other license,[4] despite the licenses otherwise not allowing relicensing under the terms of each other.[5]

> To establish an upgrade path from Affero's original AGPLv1 to the GNU AGPLv3, Affero, Inc. published the Affero General Public License version 2 in November 2007,[6] which is merely a transitional license that allows recipients of software licensed under "AGPLv1 or any later version as published by Affero, Inc." to distribute the software, or derivative works, under the GNU AGPLv3 or any later version.

Re: Minio Changes License to AGPL

#130

Post by MichaelMoser123 »

tareqak wrote: post #129
MichaelMoser123 wrote: post #128

there is the AGPL [1] and the GNU AGPL [2] now the AGPL is designed to block "Application Service Provider" hole. (closed source shops from using modified GPL source code without publishing their changes, as it is only hosted on a single network destination) Can someone please explain the differences between AGPL and GNU AGPL in this respect? Things are now very fragmented in the land of licenses; is there a resource…

From your link [1], > Compatibility with the GPL > Both versions of the AGPL, like the corresponding versions of the GNU GPL on which they are based, are strong copyleft licenses. In the Free Software Foundation's judgment, the added requirement in section 2(d) of Affero GPL v1 made it incompatible with the otherwise nearly identical GPLv2. That is to say, one cannot distribute a single work formed by combining compo…

thanks! still these are different license, for whatever reasons, so there must be some kind of practical difference (other than the name)
Post reply on HN