Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Minio Changes License to AGPL

github.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 150 posts

Re: Minio Changes License to AGPL

#71

Post by atq2119 »

jasonhansel wrote: post #55
eloff wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Yes, this is the main reason to welcome these recent adoptions of AGPL.

Blanket bans of licenses are bad for free software. More pressure to revisit them is a good thing.

Re: Minio Changes License to AGPL

#72

Post by papercrane »

Benjamin_Dobell wrote: post #60

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 seeing an obvious license issue here. Apache 2.0 is GPLv3 compatible (but not V2 compatible.) Both Apache and the FSF agree on that, and the AGPLv3 is compatible with GPLv3. So I don't see why they'd need explicit approval to use the AGPLv3 going forward.

Re: Minio Changes License to AGPL

#73

Post by Benjamin_Dobell »

yjftsjthsd-h wrote: post #70
Benjamin_Dobell wrote: post #60

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…

> Incidentally, the Apache 2.0 is a terrible license for modern open source, and it probably shouldn't be used. 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?

Please see the EDIT.

Re: Minio Changes License to AGPL

#74

Post by Benjamin_Dobell »

papercrane wrote: post #72
Benjamin_Dobell wrote: post #60

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 seeing an obvious license issue here. Apache 2.0 is GPLv3 compatible (but not V2 compatible.) Both Apache and the FSF agree on that, and the AGPLv3 is compatible with GPLv3. So I don't see why they'd need explicit approval to use the AGPLv3 going forward.

Please see the EDIT.

Re: Minio Changes License to AGPL

#75

Post by gsich »

yjftsjthsd-h wrote: post #69
gsich wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> If you don't upgrade literally nothing will change. If you have upgraded and noticed the license change - downgrade. And if you upgrade and don't notice the change?

Then no one else will either and you most likely haven't modified the source (as that would make you notice the changes) so you are fine too.

Re: Minio Changes License to AGPL

#76

Post by [deleted] »

ddevault wrote: post #64

Minio's development culture has a very self-interested feel to it, like it's their thing moreso than the community's thing. Combine that with the corporate pandering it's designed for, and this was a long time coming. Back in February I remarked on IRC "I feel like minio is always one bad day away from changing to some bullshit proprietary license." I'm glad that it's the AGPL and not one of the nonfree fad licenses…

[deleted]

Re: Minio Changes License to AGPL

#77

Post by yjftsjthsd-h »

Benjamin_Dobell wrote: post #73
yjftsjthsd-h wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Incidentally, the Apache 2.0 is a terrible license for modern open source, and it probably shouldn't be used. 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?

Please see the EDIT.

As of 2021-04-24T00:14:57Z, your edits don't appear to answer what problems you have with Apache 2.0? You've only said that people should read it and talked about its interactions with AGPL.

Re: Minio Changes License to AGPL

#78

Post by sangnoir »

merb wrote: post #65

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…

When people say BSD-style licenses are "more permissive" than GPL - this is what they mean. You truly can do whatever you want, as long as you observe the license requirements (i.e. retain the BSD license notice). One can close-source a fork (but keep the notice), or add an additional compatible license like the GPL or AGPL (but keep the BSD notice), or add a license that bars use by cat-lovers (but keep the BSD notice).

> I'm not so sure, if the go authors are happy about that.

Then they should probably switch to a different license - one that more closely mirrors their intent. The cat's out of the bag for all released versions though.

Re: Minio Changes License to AGPL

#79

Post by papercrane »

Benjamin_Dobell wrote: post #60

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…

> In fact, one requirement is the very fact you can't remove the license text itself

The same section with that requirement also says you may use a different license terms for that notice as long as it complies with the terms of the Apache 2.0 license. In this case since the AGPLv3 is a superset of the Apache 2.0 license it can be substituted for the Apache 2.0 license per these terms.

Re: Minio Changes License to AGPL

#80

Post by Benjamin_Dobell »

yjftsjthsd-h wrote: post #77
Benjamin_Dobell wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Please see the EDIT.

As of 2021-04-24T00:14:57Z, your edits don't appear to answer what problems you have with Apache 2.0? You've only said that people should read it and talked about its interactions with AGPL.

I asked people to read the license, it's all explained in the license. There's no ambiguity, it's really clear cut.

Seems as that's apparently an unreasonable expectation, I'll quote a previous HN comment I've made in regard to Apache 2.0:

> I think this is a common misconception. The Apache 2.0 license isn't all that similar to simpler licenses BSD/MIT/X11.

> Apache 2.0 has some clauses which (most people tend to ignore and which) make it somewhat incompatible with modern open-source fork and pull request workflows.

> In particular 4.b)

> > You must cause any modified files to carry prominent notices stating that You changed the files;

> For the most part, people just throw their name in the file, in an attempt to "meet" this requirement without massacring the file header/notice.

> However, if the Apache 2 license is taken at face value, when you fork and modify a file, you have to mark it as such. Then when you submit back, the project (in adherence with the Apache 2.0 license) has to retain this notice. Technically the project may even then need to add their own notice to indicate they modified the file since you did.

> Clearly, that's not tenable, so most (small) projects just offer leeway. Larger projects instead have contributor agreements (AOSP and alike).

Post reply on HN