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

Nutanix Objects violates MinIO’s open source license

blog.min.io

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

131–140 of 149 posts

Re: Nutanix Objects violates MinIO’s open source license

#131

Post by Jolter »

pabs3 wrote: post #126
Jolter wrote: post #42

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.

As soon as they are in violation of the license, they no longer have permission to redistribute the code, because the license is the only thing that allows that and it only allows that if they are in compliance with the license. So there is cause for a lawsuit immediately, not after any other action.

They could, but clearly according to the article, they are not doing that. They are first revoking the license and notifying the affected party. I assume the lawsuit will be filed as soon as they have evidence that the notification is served yet the violation is continuing.

Re: Nutanix Objects violates MinIO’s open source license

#132

Post by justinclift »

flatsix wrote: post #106
manictothemax wrote: post #84

Nutanix Objects does not use minio in the core data path. The presence of a binary in a kubernetes pod doesn't necessarily mean that the binary is being used or the fact that nutanix objects is nothing but a wrapper over minio. Earlier implementations did use minio purely as a S3 protocol adapter, i.e a protocol translator from S3 API to Nutanix internal storage protocol. This was something that was publicly acknowle…

I recently left Nutanix, but I worked on Objects for the past 12 months. The MinIO path was deprecated by the time that I joined. I don't have enough information to confidently side with either Nutanix or MinIO, but I'll clarify and confirm a few things: - As you said, MinIO was used to translate S3 REST API requests to internal RPCs. - MinIO was replaced with an in-house S3 API server. - I distinctly remember seeing…

Out of curiosity, do you remember what language the in-house S3 API server was written in? :)

Re: Nutanix Objects violates MinIO’s open source license

#133

Post by throwauua »

js4ever wrote: post #14

MinIO is a fantastic tech and they seemed to be really patient to resolve this issue (waiting 3 years before doing actions). I'll continue to use them and recommend them everywhere I work. They really deserve respect... And to be paid for their hard work.

I'd like to hear Nutanix side of this story before sliding with one party. Awaiting for blog post from them :P

Until then here is my spicy story: - In 2019: Minio Sales contacted Nutanix (like this user mentioned https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32152645) hoping for a nice big cheque.

- 2019-2021: Nutanix cites Apache-2 license and refused to pay.

- 2021: Minio changed its license to AGPL (probably few others like Nutanix)

- 2021: Nutanix knows this and refuses to use AGPL version with their product.

- 2022: Discussion went on for another year and nothing came out from Nutanix.

- Now: Minio decided to publicly shame the company.

Re: Nutanix Objects violates MinIO’s open source license

#134

Post by bayesian_horse »

pabs3 wrote: post #127
bayesian_horse wrote: post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They aren't redistributing it at all, only using it.

The AGPL network interaction provisions trigger on modification, not redistribution, so you can violate it without redistribution.

Yes, which is the point of AGPL.

Re: Nutanix Objects violates MinIO’s open source license

#135

Post by bayesian_horse »

cpach wrote: post #79
bayesian_horse wrote: post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That also means Nutanix is pretty sure they are covered, legally.

I don’t follow. What case would they have to not follow the AGPL…?

I don't know. But they have been thoroughly informed of the issue and have not acted. Thus I conclude they most likely feel they don't need to act.

Re: Nutanix Objects violates MinIO’s open source license

#136

Post by ngc248 »

debarshri wrote: post #27

Around 2019, a lot of kubernetes distributions started popping up. They often bundle various open source solutions into one platform/PaaS and sell it to the end users. I wonder, - What are the consequences for these companies? - Do they share revenue with the open source projects? - Can they simply distribute these services without any consequences? - If not, When and How does a small open source project org enforce…

Companies are not doing anything wrong when they are profiting off a permissive license. Its only a problem if they do something which is not in line with the license.

If people want to make money off open source, then dual licensing is a good way.

Permissively licensing code and then when companies use it as they wish (due to the permissive license), complaining about it does not look good.

Re: Nutanix Objects violates MinIO’s open source license

#137

Post by [deleted] »

vlovich123 wrote: post #52
stevewatson301 wrote: post #5

You'd think Nutanix would have the brains to change the names of the deployed binaries, which brings up an interesting question. How do you detect license violation if the violator has replaced the brand name across the codebase?

Alternate interpretation: Nutanix is fully compliant with the terms of Apache 2 and refused to be extorted into paying MinIO money. The press release is high on FUD (can’t revoke an irrevocable license, no evidence presented they have deployed the AGPLv3 version) and low on details why it took them three years to issue a press release when an injunction would have been granted pretty quick if Nutanix were truly in vi…

[deleted]

Re: Nutanix Objects violates MinIO’s open source license

#138

Post by pabs3 »

Jolter wrote: post #82
bayesian_horse wrote: post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They aren't redistributing it at all, only using it.

I’m pretty sure when the license is revoked, that includes the license for using it as well. The article doesn’t seem to state if they are redistributing it or not, but I’ll take your word for it. Without being a user of the infringing product, I’m not able to tell whose premises the server they SSH’d into is on.

IIRC the AGPL says you don't need a license to use the code, but you do to modify the code, which then triggers the network interaction requirements.

Re: Nutanix Objects violates MinIO’s open source license

#140

Post by throwoutway »

throwauua wrote: post #133
js4ever wrote: post #14

MinIO is a fantastic tech and they seemed to be really patient to resolve this issue (waiting 3 years before doing actions). I'll continue to use them and recommend them everywhere I work. They really deserve respect... And to be paid for their hard work.

I'd like to hear Nutanix side of this story before sliding with one party. Awaiting for blog post from them :P Until then here is my spicy story: - In 2019: Minio Sales contacted Nutanix (like this user mentioned https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32152645 ) hoping for a nice big cheque. - 2019-2021: Nutanix cites Apache-2 license and refused to pay. - 2021: Minio changed its license to AGPL (probably few others li…

Do you work for Nutanix? Why the brand new account for this? And then referencing another throwaway user that says they work there
Post reply on HN