21–30 of 150 posts
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…
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…
Let's say I use Minio in a SaaS app and allow my end users to upload directly to it. With this AGPL license change, is this now considered to be a form of distribution, that would then require me to open source the rest of my SaaS app?
You only have a problem if you modify anything in the source code of minio that you host.
[1] https://softwareengineering.stackexchange.com/a/107931/28221
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…
The AGPLv3 and Apache 2 licenses are compatible. The maintainers are welcome to relicense their own contributions under the AGPLv3 and distribute the whole subject to that license (and the Apache 2 license), but that doesn't magically make contributed source AGPL. Removing the Apache license is suspicious because there are a heap of commits that are still covered by this license and without it the core MinIO devs hav…
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…
Would it be possible to simply fork an MIT-style license and relicense the new fork as AGPL? The pre-fork version can continue with its old license, but the new fork is AGPL.
Unless you get everyone who has contributed code to also release their code under the new license, the old license is the only one which all of the code has.
It is possible to start contributing code to a project under a new license (effectively re-licensing the project in the eyes of the community), provided that the new license does not violate the old one. Specifically the Apache license REQUIRES that the code be distributed with a copy of the Apache license. Just removing or changing that license without the copyright holder's permission is in violation of that copyright.
A lot of projects avoid potential future issues by having a contributors agreement in addition to the project's distribution license. Essentially, you give an extremely permissive (possibly up full ownership) of the code you write to the project. That is, some legal entity such as a person (the head maintainer) or a foundation. This legal entity then distributes the project to the community using the license of their choice.
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…
GPLv3 is compatible with Apache 2.0. This copyright statement should have addendum which indicates that portions of the code (written by contributors) are under the Apache 2.0 license. This could be addressed. There's no pulling the rug under people here: it's not like the previous releases, under the Apache license, are rescinded. Someone can still fork the project and keep it under the Apache license. If they are u…
You’d think they would have thought of this first. The fact that we’re having this conversation isn’t a good sign.
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…
Let's say I use Minio in a SaaS app and allow my end users to upload directly to it. With this AGPL license change, is this now considered to be a form of distribution, that would then require me to open source the rest of my SaaS app?
"The primary risk presented by AGPL is that any product or service that depends on AGPL-licensed code, or includes anything copied or derived from AGPL-licensed code, may be subject to the virality of the AGPL license. "
Almost all larger places have very strict bans on evening touching AGPL -
https://opensource.google/docs/using/agpl-policy/
The contributors can of course license commercially, so this has made it a popular sort of "shared source" type license - you can look at the code, but can't use it in your own projects unless they are open source too or pay for the commercial license.
Yet another Rust project sinking to the depths of closed source.
If you wouldn't mind reviewing https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and taking the intended spirit of the site more to heart, we'd be grateful.