Minio Changes License to AGPL

I don't think that essay supports what you said. (It's incredibly well written by the way, thanks for linking it.) Near the end it asks:

> If you build a larger web service by combining network services that call each other over HTTP, rather than libraries or snippets of code linked or pasted together, does “Corresponding Source” include the source for those other services? What if each service is containerized, encapsulated in its own operating system? Do those operating systems count as “System Libraries” or “generally available programs” shield the application code they run?

Note that the author is asking a question here. It's not entirely clear (AFAIK, IANAL, etc) what precisely constitutes "linking" when it comes to the (A)GPL.

A thought experiment. Evil Corp takes a GPL licensed program and modifies it to communicate via file descriptors instead of linking with it at compile time and directly calling its functions. They proceed to distribute a separate proprietary product that makes use of the GPL program for many of its core functions. They claim that this isn't a violation of the GPL because they haven't "linked" with any GPL'd code. This is clearly a violation of the spirit of the GPL, but is it a violation of the letter?

He gets an F for effective communication from me, but he's technically correct by my reading. They can sublicense (which creates a weird franken-license) but they can't (unilaterally) relicense.

Without a CLA in place Minio can't unilaterally "change the license to the AGPL" (your words). What they can do is add the terms of the AGPL to each existing file, in addition to (but not instead of!) the Apache terms that are already there. The end result is AGPL with a few extra but very permissive clauses tacked on.

Going forward, any newly created files need not carry the Apache terms at all (obviously).

The changesets prior to this event remain licensed under _only_ the Apache license. (Well, actually, they could sublicense those too but there'd be no point because you could just get an unmodified copy from someone else.) Future changesets fall under the combined terms of the Apache and AGPL licenses. To be clear, this isn't dual licensing (ie pick one) but rather "all of the above". You simultaneously have to comply with all the terms from both licenses. Which, notably, means you can't remove the Apache notice or list of contributors (among other things).

You're reading it wrong.

If we were to read this like a piece of computer code, the incompatibility would be mutual. GPL code does not permit further restrictions. "You cannot remove Apache 2.0" would be a further restriction. Ergo, you couldn't incorporate.

It's just that this isn't how you read or interpret legal text.

The linked page is correct. You can incorporate/sublicense Apache code into GPL code. You can't do the reverse.

Most of this is nonsense, but I'll point out a few things:

> "Infringement and damages are unrelated concepts"

No. They're the same concept. Infringement is okay if there are no damages. That's how a lawyer reads a contract. You're merely confusing types of damages. There are many ways to calculate damages. You're describing statutory damages. You usually run the calculation all ways, and take the greatest number which applies (but not always). That's how you might get into hundreds of thousands of dollars of damages for an MP3 collection.

> "unless you're sitting down with a lawyer (which let's face most open source projects are not)"

No, this isn't right. Most major free software projects do have access to lawyers. I've worked on several, and what I did was always reviewed by in-house counsel (and not just one organization). Even if there isn't a corporate sponsor, that's what a lot of the free software / open source not-for-profits do. I've had conversations with volunteer counsels too. Most minor projects generally won't need a sit-down session with a lawyer, but if they want access for whatever reason, it's not rocket science either:

1) Look into your social network. I have 3 or 4 lawyers who went to the same college I did. When I have a legal question, I do call them up. For something as simply as the nonsense you're spouting, any lawyer can set you straight.

2) If you are doing work at a company above a hundred people, it will have an in-house counsel. Shoot them a quick email. Most are friendly; that's what they're there for.

3) If you're not (1) or (2), you probably have someone like me in your network.

4) And if all else fails, you can go to the right meetup.

My experience is that for a volunteer project, open source, or similar, most lawyers are glad to chat.

> "Just read the damn license"

This is just about the worst advice on HN. Your options:

1) Read the license with a lawyer

2) Read the license as well as articles from actual lawyers about the license

3) Learn enough about law to read the license correctly.

You're misreading the licenses, and that's what's dangerous. It's kind of like referring people to WebMD over a doctor.

Correct, but that misses the point I was making entirely. Running S3/Elastic/API-X wherever you'd like is a separate issue to the kind of problem that Elastic faced with AWS. AWS soaked up a huge amount of Elastic's potential market, because they are so big and entrenched. Only AWS, Azure, and GCP are big enough to do that - and I don't see anyone "stealing" a reasonable degree of S3 customers from AWS by using Minio (let alone any business model that Minio might be exploring).