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

91–100 of 149 posts

Re: Nutanix Objects violates MinIO’s open source license

#91

Post by mbreese »

jonhohle wrote: post #89
manictothemax wrote: post #84

Nutanix Objects does not use minio in the core data path. The presence of a binary in a kubernetes pod doesn't necessarily mean that the binary is being used or the fact that nutanix objects is nothing but a wrapper over minio. Earlier implementations did use minio purely as a S3 protocol adapter, i.e a protocol translator from S3 API to Nutanix internal storage protocol. This was something that was publicly acknowle…

Whether they use it or not is irrelevant if they are distributing it.

It would make it easier to remove though… which makes it even more odd that it is still there even after the three years of notice.

Re: Nutanix Objects violates MinIO’s open source license

#92

Post by mbreese »

cpach wrote: post #79
bayesian_horse wrote: post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That also means Nutanix is pretty sure they are covered, legally.

I don’t follow. What case would they have to not follow the AGPL…?

Who said this is the AGPL version of MinIO? It was only a little over a year ago that they changed from Apache to AGPL. MinIO wrote that they only suspected an AGPL violation. Most their accusation was focused on the Apache license.

There would still need to be an acknowledgment from the NOTICES file, but that’s it.

Re: Nutanix Objects violates MinIO’s open source license

#93

Post by kgeist »

Jolter wrote: post #42
pabs3 wrote: post #6

Will revoking their license stop Nutanix from using MinIO or will they have to go to court to get them to stop? I don't see any mention of a lawsuit in the post.

First, revoke the license. That means they are no longer permitted to redistribute the code. If they then continue to redistribute it, they are committing a copyright violation. That’s when there is cause for a lawsuit.

>First, revoke the license. That means they are no longer permitted to redistribute the code.

I wonder how it works. What is the act of revoking an open source license exactly? I assume they simply sent a letter and wrote a blog post? Pretty sure in my country it would have no legal force. Is it different in the US?

Re: Nutanix Objects violates MinIO’s open source license

#94

Post by mrweasel »

tut-urut-utut wrote: post #8
oigursh wrote: post #2

Open and shut case. Disappointing that the Nutanix engineers care so little about their peers.

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…

The engineers might understand the issue better than legal. Most engineers I've meet understand the spirit and intentions of the open source license far better than the legal teams, who are more interested in whether or not you could be successfully sued.

One of the issues with open source software, from a branding perspective, is that you can technically be in the clear, but violate the social contract that implicitly exist in the community. Many companies fail to factor that part in when running licenses through legal.

Re: Nutanix Objects violates MinIO’s open source license

#95

Post by robinsoh »

bastardoperator wrote: post #69

I'm shocked anyone would buy something from Nutanix.

> I'm shocked anyone would buy something from Nutanix.

Why? The alternative competitors like VMware are better? I'm not up to date on the details but perhaps you may want to elaborate. Thanks.

http://techrights.org/2020/04/28/openwashing-vmware-after-gp...

https://sfconservancy.org/copyleft-compliance/vmware-lawsuit...

Re: Nutanix Objects violates MinIO’s open source license

#96

Post by throwaway48423 »

kevingadd wrote: post #87
throwaway48423 wrote: post #86

our organization was using Minio as an external S3 replacement and had contacted their sales once. When a decision was made to not go for the paid plan, we were legally threatened saying that we cannot even make remote calls to a AGPL software.

That's kind of the point of the AGPL

For a system that is a providing an object storage service how else are you going to use it? We had started using it when it was Apache2 and then we got stuck. Might as well just make it into a paid product/service and not play the open source card and earn creds from community.

Re: Nutanix Objects violates MinIO’s open source license

#97

Post by bad416f1f5a2 »

debarshri wrote: post #65
bad416f1f5a2 wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Often these platforms have enterprise license. Does that mean it is not free? There’s way too much nuance to give a clear answer without something being wrong. Give an example?

For instance, let say there is a platform xyz platform that is an abstraction on rancher to deploy kubernetes, that also deploys the grafana, prometheus, loki, cilium etc. But now, the owners of platform xyz says it is 5k a month for enterprise license of this abstraction. But users may or may not realise that they are using all the tools I have listed. Does that mean, the owners of the platform to have to pay the ot…

I think ghaff gave a pretty good answer as well, but here's some more nuance:

> Does that mean, the owners of the platform to have to pay the other platforms?

No.

Tons of "value-add platforms" exist like this: wrap a bunch of open source up, add a UX layer on top and offer support. As long as you comply with the terms of the license, you can do just that. And many licenses (MIT/BSD/friends) are often complied with by merely redisplaying that software's license in the documentation or on a LICENSES file somewhere.

But there are licenses that are less permissive. The GPL is the one most people think of. If you modify and distribute GPL licensed software to others, you have to share your source. How do you dodge this? SaaS: change the GPL licensed software as much as you want, never distribute it, but instead allow users to interact with it over the network. Totally compliant.

Hence, we got AGPLv3, with this big provision:

> Notwithstanding any other provision of this License, if you modify the Program, your modified version must prominently offer all users interacting with it remotely through a computer network (if your version supports such interaction) an opportunity to receive the Corresponding Source of your version by providing access to the Corresponding Source from a network server at no charge, through some standard or customary means of facilitating copying of software.

Now, if your bundled SaaS solution includes AGPLv3 software, you have to make its code available.

There are interesting questions here ... if you take an AGPLv3 software and slap a nice GUI under it, is that "linking" under AGPLv3? Possibly. There's at least an argument to be made.

> Is there any kind of license that protects the interest of opensource developers.

If your interest is building software and releasing it openly while keeping it away from people who want to monetize it, traditionally the use of AGPL does just that. Google, Facebook, Amazon – I have first or second-hand knowledge that any attempt to bring AGPL into those ecosystems is a hard no without exception.

But, what "interest" are you trying to protect? I have released software under the BSD license that has been adopted in commercial applications. I'm fine with that; it was in my interest to release it under the BSD license, that's all.

Licenses matter. Pick the one that encodes what you'd like to achieve.

Re: Nutanix Objects violates MinIO’s open source license

#98

Post by robertlagrant »

KronisLV wrote: post #75
robertlagrant wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's a tricky problem one can only have when one chooses to give one's work away with zero strings attached :)

That is probably true, when you live in a society where you probably still want some money for your work. The greater implications of that might have something to do with how we get articles like "Software below the poverty line": https://staltz.com/software-below-the-poverty-line.html Or maybe the revelations about how "well" supported the people who maintained Log4j were from the open source community: https://word…

No one needs to get angry at anything, and people are free to change their minds if they decide their previous decision to open source was a mistake. It's just worth remembering that this is a deliberate part of choosing to make open source software, and not an unintended consequence.

Re: Nutanix Objects violates MinIO’s open source license

#99

Post by ajayyy »

throwaway48423 wrote: post #96
kevingadd wrote: post #87

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's kind of the point of the AGPL

For a system that is a providing an object storage service how else are you going to use it? We had started using it when it was Apache2 and then we got stuck. Might as well just make it into a paid product/service and not play the open source card and earn creds from community.

If you are naking open source software, you can use minio for free, otherwise you have to pay them money. If it was proprietary, that would not be the case

You also are free to study and learn from the code

Re: Nutanix Objects violates MinIO’s open source license

#100

Post by GK1981 »

manictothemax wrote: post #84

Nutanix Objects does not use minio in the core data path. The presence of a binary in a kubernetes pod doesn't necessarily mean that the binary is being used or the fact that nutanix objects is nothing but a wrapper over minio. Earlier implementations did use minio purely as a S3 protocol adapter, i.e a protocol translator from S3 API to Nutanix internal storage protocol. This was something that was publicly acknowle…

ROFL if you see block and files as the official disclosure fron Nutanix is a great testament of how that company is run :) Try getting their OSD file and see if MinIO is listed :)
Post reply on HN