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

51–60 of 149 posts

Re: Nutanix Objects violates MinIO’s open source license

#51

Post by vlovich123 »

btdmaster wrote: post #44

Can you revoke an Apache-2.0 copyright license? The terms say irrevocable, though it stipulates respecting the terms and conditions: "2. Grant of Copyright License. Subject to the terms and conditions of this License, each Contributor hereby grants to You a perpetual, worldwide, non-exclusive, no-charge, royalty-free, irrevocable copyright license to reproduce, prepare Derivative Works of, publicly display, publicly…

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. The license is certainly irrevocable and patent indemnifying provided you don’t violate it.

You can’t both try to engender good will by releasing your code as OSS and then simultaneously going after someone who would seem to be complying with the terms with FUD. To see the FUD most clearly:

> and we believe they may also be in violation of the GNU AGPL v3 versions of MinIO

If that were the case you’d actually be in a court of law enforcing the license rather than trying to sway any kind of public opinion.

This almost certainly stems from their switch to AGPLv3 to ensure that cloud providers can’t use it as part of their own offering. That’s fair but also provides context on motivation.

Re: Nutanix Objects violates MinIO’s open source license

#52

Post by vlovich123 »

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 violation of the Apache license.

I don’t claim to know the details but I do know a little bit the rights under Apache2 and (unless my understanding is incorrect) MinIO’s claims are baffling.

Re: Nutanix Objects violates MinIO’s open source license

#53

Post by Aeolun »

pid-1 wrote: post #12
tut-urut-utut wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Please don't blame engineers on every single issue. The engineer may not even know there's an issue here. They may be assured by their boss or legal department that they are in the clear. They may not even think about such mundane things like licensing and stuff, that's what they have higher ups for. If someone is to blame, then it's the company leadership and legal department. As much as we want to make us engineers…

> They may not even think about such mundane things like licensing and stuff Imagine a medical doctor or civil engineer claiming that knowing the laws of their professions is "mudane". That's why no one takes programers seriously. > we are not decision makers. You totally can decide to not work on stuff you are not comfortable with. It's not like there's a shortage of software engineering jobs.

> knowing the laws of their professions is "mudane". That's why no one takes programmers seriously.

You cannot know laws that are not there, and the very definition of a lot of software positions these day is ‘do evil’.

Re: Nutanix Objects violates MinIO’s open source license

#54

Post by Aeolun »

jsiepkes wrote: post #39
pid-1 wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> They may not even think about such mundane things like licensing and stuff Imagine a medical doctor or civil engineer claiming that knowing the laws of their professions is "mudane". That's why no one takes programers seriously. > we are not decision makers. You totally can decide to not work on stuff you are not comfortable with. It's not like there's a shortage of software engineering jobs.

> You totally can decide to not work on stuff you are not comfortable with. I seriously don't get why engineers think they share no responsibility whatsoever for the company they work for. Somehow, they seem to think their situation is comparable to someone picking orders at an Amazon fulfillment center. Thinking they "have no choice" when making 6 figures and having to fight off the recruiters. That's just an easy e…

> can barely make ends meet

I dunno, that’s kinda how I feel every time I look at the price of housing.

Re: Nutanix Objects violates MinIO’s open source license

#55

Post by Aeolun »

bregma wrote: post #25
tut-urut-utut wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Please don't blame engineers on every single issue. The engineer may not even know there's an issue here. They may be assured by their boss or legal department that they are in the clear. They may not even think about such mundane things like licensing and stuff, that's what they have higher ups for. If someone is to blame, then it's the company leadership and legal department. As much as we want to make us engineers…

"I was just following orders" is not considered a legitimate excuse. The engineers have agency and should be considered a "reasonable person".

As soon as doing morally questionable things becomes illegal I think you’ll find that a lot more people are willing to take a stand.

Re: Nutanix Objects violates MinIO’s open source license

#56

Post by vlovich123 »

CarVac wrote: post #31
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

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 would be fine with a GPL-like license that forced you to share the source for that code even if it’s behind a service. The viral nature of AGPL makes it toxic to almost everyone unless you’re willing to pay the copyright holders for special permission. That’s certainly fine but to me it’s less OSS and more like a viral source available license.

Re: Nutanix Objects violates MinIO’s open source license

#57

Post by bad416f1f5a2 »

bionsystem wrote: post #19
tut-urut-utut wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Please don't blame engineers on every single issue. The engineer may not even know there's an issue here. They may be assured by their boss or legal department that they are in the clear. They may not even think about such mundane things like licensing and stuff, that's what they have higher ups for. If someone is to blame, then it's the company leadership and legal department. As much as we want to make us engineers…

You are being downvoted but I actually think there are some fair points that you are making. We use a lot of FOSS in our company. We pay licenses and contribute very little (our job isn't to improve gitlab or docker, we are shipping a software product on top of that), but I wouldn't know where exactly we are in the legal-illegal spectrum to save my life. I consider myself an employee, not an entrepreneur. If I was an…

If your job is to pick the dependencies, your job is also to understand what picking those dependencies means.

It rings hollow to throw your hands up at the license part and say - “not my job”. It is. Understanding the legal risk of that dependency is as important as understanding the technical risk.

If your company doesn’t have a license policy, ask for a lawyer to draft that. But I’ve worked at some pretty penny-ante companies before and even they had an acceptable license policy.

If yours truly doesn’t have one, part of your job as the person building the software is to get one drafted.

Re: Nutanix Objects violates MinIO’s open source license

#58

Post by acatton »

CarVac wrote: post #31
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

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.

Alternative point of view: opensource isn't the same as freeloading

Re: Nutanix Objects violates MinIO’s open source license

#60

Post by Aeolun »

acatton wrote: post #29
henvic wrote: post #9

Any recommendations on MinIO forks or open-source alternatives with more welcoming licenses? They changed their license from Apache recently. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MinIO#Re-licensing

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.

Post reply on HN