121–130 of 149 posts
Nutanix makes a big song and dance about their ethics. https://www.nutanix.com/viewer?type=pdf&path=/content/dam/nu... Looks like it's just there for show.
I mean, to be fair, having a Code of [Conduct|Ethics] is table-stakes for any company smaller than a small startup. This is far from a song and dance, but just checking off a box.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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…
> But, because it doesn't actually prevent a cloud provider from competing with you with your own software, there have been a few (non-open source according to the open source definition) licenses created that specifically bar this sort of use. 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 n…
Not true. For AWS to run MongoDB proper, they could just negotiate with MongoDB to offer it as a managed service - as Tencent, Alibaba, SAP, IBM, Swisscom, OVH and 10+ others have.
> It's also not open source under almost anyone's definition.
Enter the OSI. While it not be "Open Source" (note the capitals) I don't think anybody has the right to legislate the use of "open source" with lower case letters. A nit, but an important one - the capitals force us to realize that it's not a word in Webster's Dictionary. It's a proper noun definiton put forth and pushed by one organization. I can certainly say "...oracle is lying..." but if I say "...Oracle is lying...", I expect the black cars to drive up to my house pretty quickly.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> But, because it doesn't actually prevent a cloud provider from competing with you with your own software, there have been a few (non-open source according to the open source definition) licenses created that specifically bar this sort of use. 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 n…
>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. Not true. For AWS to run MongoDB proper, they could just negotiate with MongoDB to offer it as a managed service - as Tencent, Alibaba, SAP, IBM, Swisscom, OVH and 10+ others have. > It's also not open source under almost anyone's definition. Enter the OSI. While it not be "Open So…
True, that is an option. I’ll give anyone odds of it happening ;-)
> While it not be "Open Source" (note the capitals) I don't think anybody has the right to legislate the use of "open source" with lower case letters.
I think talking about “open source” is overloaded to uselessness. I really prefer to talk about licenses.
Even then the consensus I’ve heard from most people who care to think about software licensing is that the SSPL is essentially a weaponized license designed to strip freedoms. Lowercase open source, you be the judge.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>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. Not true. For AWS to run MongoDB proper, they could just negotiate with MongoDB to offer it as a managed service - as Tencent, Alibaba, SAP, IBM, Swisscom, OVH and 10+ others have. > It's also not open source under almost anyone's definition. Enter the OSI. While it not be "Open So…
> Not true. For AWS to run MongoDB proper, they could just negotiate with MongoDB to offer it as a managed service - as Tencent, Alibaba, SAP, IBM, Swisscom, OVH and 10+ others have. True, that is an option. I’ll give anyone odds of it happening ;-) > While it not be "Open Source" (note the capitals) I don't think anybody has the right to legislate the use of "open source" with lower case letters. I think talking abo…
Will revoking their license stop Nutanix from using MinIO or will they have to go to court to get them to stop? I don't see any mention of a lawsuit in the post.
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.
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.
They aren't redistributing it at all, only using it.
They use a load of other FOSS software under the hood too, not least of which libvirt/KVM. I wonder how many other licences they're violating this way.
> we believe they may also be in violation of the GNU AGPL v3 versions of MinIO.
`may also be`? you are not even 100% sure whether they are using your AGPL v3 version? I have no clue, what the heck you were discussing for 3 years.
Moving from Apache-2.0 to AGPLv3 is a clear trap for those who use Minio as part of their commercial offering. With AGPLV3 one need to "disclose your source code" where as its not required with Apache-2.
If you started your "Open source" project with AGPL it is a different thing but to start the project under Apache-2 and few years later introducing AGPLv3 is kind of lame and unethical, IMHO. https://github.com/minio/minio/discussions/12156
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's possible. But there is nothing immoral here.
External impression, not facts, but intuition seeing how some VCs and startups are acting: He didn't seem to have a real choice, maybe an illusion of choice since (from an external point of view) as he was pinned against the wall. They were using his software commercially and even using the trademark of Salvatore (he was complaining about such uses occasionally). He was broke, I guess that's why he didn't register th…