61–70 of 150 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
See my first sentence. Can't not do something if you don't know the license changed.
Not an issue. If you modify the source you'll notice if you try to keep upstream. If not (as in you don't modify) then it doesn't matter anyway.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Not an issue. If you modify the source you'll notice if you try to keep upstream. If not (as in you don't modify) then it doesn't matter anyway.
Many companies have outright internal bans on AGPL or contractual bans imposed by their clients.
If you don't upgrade literally nothing will change. If you have upgraded and noticed the license change - downgrade. Or just use it anyway, if the value of Minio is worth it.
For those wondering if they can relicense other people's changes without a CLA, the answer is yes. Apache 2.0 is compatible with the AGPL, so it can be relicensed with it (though the original contributions remain available as Apache 2.0). This does not work backwards, however - this is a one-way change. All of MinIO's code is today and forevermore available under the terms of the AGPL.
They've done a pretty shitty job of it, though. No one should have a license change sprung on them like this. Further indicates that Minio does not value their community's input.
- https://github.com/minio/minio/blob/master/pkg/argon2/argon2.go#L38
- https://github.com/golang/crypto/blob/master/argon2/argon2.go
> forked from https://golang.org/x/crypto/argon2
> modified to be used with MinIO under GNU Affero General
> Public License 3.0 license that can be found in
> the LICENSE file.
they should probably consult a lawyer...
Why 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 tha…
I'm not sure something like that is legal: - https://github.com/minio/minio/blob/master/pkg/argon2/argon2.go#L38 - https://github.com/golang/crypto/blob/master/argon2/argon2.go > forked from https://golang.org/x/crypto/argon2 > modified to be used with MinIO under GNU Affero General > Public License 3.0 license that can be found in > the LICENSE file. relicense the file based on a small change and also having two lic…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
See my first sentence. Can't not do something if you don't know the license changed.
Not an issue. If you modify the source you'll notice if you try to keep upstream. If not (as in you don't modify) then it doesn't matter anyway.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Many companies have outright internal bans on AGPL or contractual bans imposed by their clients.
And? What's the point? That companies can be stupid? If you don't upgrade literally nothing will change. If you have upgraded and noticed the license change - downgrade. Or just use it anyway, if the value of Minio is worth it.
And if you upgrade and don't notice the change?
Why 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 tha…
It's been a while since I've paid attention; what's wrong with it? It's just a permissive license with some patent stuff added, isn't it?