An interesting side point is that the founder of Minio was also the founder of Gluster, which was also briefly AGPL (just before the Red Hat acquisition IIRC). I think it makes even more sense for Minio, as an install is more likely to be made directly accessible to users. AFAIK nobody ever did that with Gluster - I used to be a maintainer BTW, and thus know a bunch of people who followed AB to Minio - because it would have been insane.
Minio Changes License to AGPL
51–60 of 150 posts
Re: Minio Changes License to AGPL
#52Earlier quoted context omitted.
> 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.
Or for people who work at companies that have those companies as close clients.
Re: Minio Changes License to AGPL
#53IANAL, 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…
[deleted]
Re: Minio Changes License to AGPL
#54Earlier quoted context omitted.
> 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?
Yes, but that isn't distributing copylefted code. If it were, the GPL and the AGPL would be the same licence.
Re: Minio Changes License to AGPL
#55Earlier quoted context omitted.
> 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.
If more high-value projects adopt the AGPL, legal departments may be motivated to revisit those bans.
Re: Minio Changes License to AGPL
#56No 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.
What's the grief from legal? All you have to do is post source for changes you make to minio, right? That doesn't seem like a huge burden.
Re: Minio Changes License to AGPL
#57I don’t necessarily think AGPL is the best license, but I am very glad it’s AGPL catching on and not SSPL and friends. I’ve spoken my piece in recent threads already, but I just think this is more friendly to the FOSS community even if it’s not perfect.
Re: Minio Changes License to AGPL
#58No 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.
Re: Minio Changes License to AGPL
#59No 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.
Only if they're modifying the source code, which would be a tiny minority.
Re: Minio Changes License to AGPL
#60Why are most software engineers so terrible at basic comprehension? Licenses are just a set of instructions, how do we consistently fail to follow them?
You can't relicense something that is Apache 2.0 as AGPL. You need explicit approval of every single contributor (whose code still exists in the project).
You can also attach the AGPL, but it is not a superset of Apache 2.0, which for example contains constraints that require you to clearly indicate each and every time a file is modified.
Incidentally, the Apache 2.0 is a terrible license for modern open source, and it probably shouldn't be used.
EDIT: To people responding, my advice is to read the licenses. Don't read a dot point summary, read the licenses. Seriously, read the licenses!
Sorry, this drives me a little mad.
Of course you can include Apache 2.0 code in an AGPL project. The point is contributors contributed their code under the terms of the Apache 2.0 license. To use that code, you must meet the terms of that license. You can slap additional requirements on, you can't remove requirements.
In fact, one requirement is the very fact you can't remove the license text itself!