Live data from Hacker News

Minio Changes License to AGPL

github.com

41–50 of 150 posts

Re: Minio Changes License to AGPL

#41
post #40

No PR and no discussion and no announcement. This will be a fun time bomb for anyone using Minio at a company where legal dislikes AGPL licenses.

Just don't upgrade or don't modify the sourcecode.

See my first sentence. Can't not do something if you don't know the license changed.

Re: Minio Changes License to AGPL

#42
post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What's the difference between the languages got to do with the license?

Not sure about what he means, but I've written this https://medium.com/@henvic/opensource-and-go-what-license-f6... in the past mostly about the impact of permissive vs. non-permissive licenses on Go code (because Go programs are statically linked; not sure about Rust).

Rust code is also generally statically linked, and we also have the additional complication of monomorphization for generics.

Re: Minio Changes License to AGPL

#43
post #16
post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The rationale for doing this escapes me. Is minio concerned about one or more cloud providers forking minio and then going closed source with their modifications? I generally only run minio from the official docker image, so I don't reckon this would affect "normal" usage?

> forking minio and then going closed source with their modifications? Which is somewhat bizarre given that aims to MinIO emulate a closed-source system. Open source businesses usually use AGPL or similar to prevent "Big Cloud" from stealing their business, this is a very strange inverted approach and I can't figure out why.

There are many companies that might use and modify a S3 compatible object storage.

The world does not run exclusively on AWS, Azure and GC.

Re: Minio Changes License to AGPL

#44
post #39

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…

> I noticed that they have a large number of contributors yet seem to have no contributor agreement with ownership assignment. I did a quick analysis of the project and there were 41 contributors in the last year that contributed more than 10 lines of code churn to go files. See the following for an analysis: https://public-001.gitsense.com/insights/github/repos?q=file... If you switch to the impacts view, you can se…

How does “reimplement contributions” work in practice? For trivial changes there’s often no alternate implementation (e.g. correcting a typo) and for anything substantial anybody currently involved in the project would be tainted with exposure to the implementation.

Re: Minio Changes License to AGPL

#45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You only have a problem if you modify anything in the source code of minio that you host.

> You only have a problem if you modify anything in the source code of minio that you host. And even in that case, you only need to share your modifications of minio, not anything about the rest of your system. Doesn't seem too much of a problem, to begin with.

Or put a proxy in front of it.

Re: Minio Changes License to AGPL

#46
post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Correct - you would need to open source your entire app (or at least a strong arguement can be made that you must do so). "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 - htt…

> 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. Please, stop spreading ridiculous FUD. You can use copylefted code in your own projects without any restriction. It is only when you distribute this copylefted code (e.g., by letting users run it in your computer) that you need to publish your modifications to it. And then, this is only…

> It is only when you distribute this copylefted code (e.g., by letting users run it in your computer) that you need to publish your modifications to it.

I don't know if that was a typo, but letting users run the software on your computer, isn't 'distribution' in the usual sense. What you said sounds true of the GPL, but doesn't give a complete account of the AGPL.

From the FSF: [0]

> The GNU Affero General Public License is a modified version of the ordinary GNU GPL version 3. It has one added requirement: if you run a modified program on a server and let other users communicate with it there, your server must also allow them to download the source code corresponding to the modified version running there.

[0] https://www.gnu.org/licenses/why-affero-gpl.html

Re: Minio Changes License to AGPL

#47
post #44
post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I noticed that they have a large number of contributors yet seem to have no contributor agreement with ownership assignment. I did a quick analysis of the project and there were 41 contributors in the last year that contributed more than 10 lines of code churn to go files. See the following for an analysis: https://public-001.gitsense.com/insights/github/repos?q=file... If you switch to the impacts view, you can se…

How does “reimplement contributions” work in practice? For trivial changes there’s often no alternate implementation (e.g. correcting a typo) and for anything substantial anybody currently involved in the project would be tainted with exposure to the implementation.

I honestly don't know, but I would have to imagine something like fixing typos would fall under "this is obvious" and you can't claim copyright on it. And likewise, if your algorithm that you contributed was obvious, it would fall under the same rule.

Note, I'm just speculating of course, but I do know changing license is something that does happen and I'm sure Minio is probably looking at getting people to sign off on previous contributions. And if they can't get the contributor's consent, will look at re-implementing things or just not use previous contributions, since it is possible that the previous contribution is no longer used.

Re: Minio Changes License to AGPL

#49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You only have a problem if you modify anything in the source code of minio that you host.

> You only have a problem if you modify anything in the source code of minio that you host. And even in that case, you only need to share your modifications of minio, not anything about the rest of your system. Doesn't seem too much of a problem, to begin with.

A lot of companies I've worked for had a blanket ban on AGPL. This is not a problem with the license, it's a problem with those companies. But it's still going to be a pain for the people who work there.

Re: Minio Changes License to AGPL

#50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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. Please, stop spreading ridiculous FUD. You can use copylefted code in your own projects without any restriction. It is only when you distribute this copylefted code (e.g., by letting users run it in your computer) that you need to publish your modifications to it. And then, this is only…

> It is only when you distribute this copylefted code (e.g., by letting users run it in your computer) that you need to publish your modifications to it. I don't know if that was a typo, but letting users run the software on your computer, isn't 'distribution' in the usual sense. What you said sounds true of the GPL, but doesn't give a complete account of the AGPL. From the FSF: [0] > The GNU Affero General Public Li…

by "your computer" i meant your server. It's the same thing, isn't it?
Post reply on HN