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

141–149 of 149 posts

Re: Nutanix Objects violates MinIO’s open source license

#141

Post by phpisthebest »

Aeolun wrote: post #60
acatton wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How is the AGPL not welcoming?[1] [1] https://drewdevault.com/2020/07/27/Anti-AGPL-propaganda.html

> Any derivative works of AGPL-licensed software must also use the AGPL. It’s a viral license. It infects everything it touches.

False

AGPL is purposefully designed to eliminate the Embrace, Extend, Extinguish model of Cloud providers, where the provider embraces a popular open source projects, creates a "service" from it, extends that service in order to make their flavor non-compatible with out contributing upstream in an effort to extinguish the original project.

Re: Nutanix Objects violates MinIO’s open source license

#142

Post by vlovich123 »

btdmaster wrote: post #61
vlovich123 wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Apache also doesn’t require you to share source code. Just because a company publishes their code under an OSS license doesn’t automatically make them the good guys and unless there’s some critical context it seems like pure FUD. Afaik Apache only requires you to maintain the copyright when distributing in source form (ie you don’t need to mention the license in binary form) but I’m not a lawyer and maybe misread. Th…

> The license is certainly irrevocable and patent indemnifying provided you don’t violate it. That's essentially what I find contentious, is whether "subject to the terms and conditions of this license" it is irrevocable or it is irrevocable irrespective of whether the terms of the license are being violated. With its phrasing I assumed it's the latter.

Actually, I think you're right. It's even worse. I'm not a lawyer but it seems like Apache2 grants a permanent license and the ONLY exception is when you're bringing patent litigation. The "not a lawyer" piece comes in what the consequence is if you break a license but I suspect you're no longer protected. A fake cease & desist is all MinIO could muster here.

Re: Nutanix Objects violates MinIO’s open source license

#143

Post by flatsix »

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…

I worked on Objects at Nutanix for the last ~12 months. Nutanix had originally used the API server in MinIO to translate between the S3 REST API and internal RPCs. MinIO's claim on this blog post that "Nutanix Objects is built around MinIO object storage" is a gross exaggeration.

By the time I joined in June 2021, MinIO was deprecated and we were using an in-house S3 REST API server. I am skeptical that any of the APGL code was distributed because we just weren't using it around the time that MinIO changed from Apache to AGPL.

Re: Nutanix Objects violates MinIO’s open source license

#144

Post by monkius90s »

neverartful wrote: post #71
dikei wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There are quite a few Storage projects out there with a S3-compatible API storage, that can be used in place of Minio such as Ceph, Openstack Swift, SeaweedFS, etc.. Of course, they all differ in subtle ways, so you have to try for yourself.

No one in their right mind would attempt to use Ceph in place of MinIO. Yes, Ceph can provide S3 compliant object storage via the RadosGW, but the effort and footprint is not worth it for MinIO use cases. On the other hand, OpenStack Swift's all-in-one (typically used by developers) could easily be a replacement of MinIO.

I admit personal bias, but that's no longer the only way to deploy Ceph object storage these days. (And full-blown Ceph is rather good when you in fact require resilience and very large scale.)

Re: Nutanix Objects violates MinIO’s open source license

#145

Post by variant »

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…

MinIO is leveraging their switch to the AGPL license as a vehicle to extract immense seven figure plus licensing agreements from "big" companies who relied on non-AGPL versions of the code in the past.

I don't know if that makes MinIO bad, better or good but it's all about money.

Re: Nutanix Objects violates MinIO’s open source license

#146

Post by [deleted] »

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…

[deleted]

Re: Nutanix Objects violates MinIO’s open source license

#147

Post by bad416f1f5a2 »

gqewogpdqa wrote: post #125
bad416f1f5a2 wrote: post #124

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

It's happened 15+ times before :-) I agree - talking about actual facts - i.e. licenses - is far better. I think SSPL (and AGPL) for that matter, protect freedoms - the freedoms of small companies to innovate and not have their work gobbled up and used by gorillas who have the power of distribution and platform. I don't know about the deals MongoDB has made with these 15+ cloud providers, but clearly it's working som…

No snark perceived! It was a valuable post that added more context to a topic that deserves it. Far too many people perceive a "black and white", open source / closed source distinction where none exists.

> That said, maybe they would indeed not license to the three "biggies"

I think it's actually likely the other direction: I suspect Mongo has been working with all three to get it licensed as a service, and any hesitation is from their potential customers.

I know AWS the best. They want total control, and hate paying other people. They can also afford a long time horizon. They didn't buy Annapurna Labs to offer an alternative to Intel. They aren't going to want to license Mongo because that cuts into margin and costs them control.

Re: Nutanix Objects violates MinIO’s open source license

#148

Post by CarVac »

vlovich123 wrote: post #56
CarVac wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's only not welcoming to those who wish to close the source. It's the paradox of tolerance: you must not tolerate those who find others intolerable.

That’s one perspective and while I understand it it’s not one I’ve agreed with. An alternate view is that it forces all parts of your tech stack to be open sourced even things that have nothing to do with, or at most ancillary relation to the relevant service. OSS software is valuable but AGPL steps (in my view anyway) waaaay outside of what’s reasonable to try to prevent servicifying OSS. I think most companies woul…

The point of GPL-alikes is to ensure user freedom: that the user can modify the code of any software they use.

If a company is intolerant of this, then the AGPL is intolerant of that company.

Re: Nutanix Objects violates MinIO’s open source license

#149

Post by xyzzyz »

ahepp wrote: post #102
mananaysiempre wrote: post #80

Earlier 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.

> It's a civil matter, isn't it?

No. Willful copyright infringement for commercial game is a crime. See 17 U.S.C. § 506(a).

Post reply on HN