←back to thread

MinIO stops distributing free Docker images

(github.com)
672 points LexSiga | 10 comments | 22 Oct 25 06:17 UTC | HN request time: 0.206s | source | bottom
1. the_mitsuhiko ◴[22 Oct 25 09:04 UTC] No.45666503[source]▶
MinIO was already before tricky because their interpretation of the AGPL is way to broad.
replies(2): >>45666556 #>>45666609 #
2. stanac ◴[22 Oct 25 09:10 UTC] No.45666556[source]▶
Do you have a link? I want to read more about that. Did they interpret any use as deriving from minio?
replies(1): >>45666586 #
3. the_mitsuhiko ◴[22 Oct 25 09:15 UTC] No.45666586[source]▶
They changed their public guidance at this point, but you can still find references to their approach to AGPL quoted here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35328316

> "When MinIO is linked to a larger software stack in any form, including statically, dynamically, pipes, or containerized and invoked remotely, the AGPL v3 applies to your use. What triggers the AGPL v3 obligations is the exchanging data between the larger stack and MinIO."

replies(3): >>45666683 #>>45666692 #>>45667682 #
4. pastage ◴[22 Oct 25 09:18 UTC] No.45666609[source]▶
I like the GPL it has given us a lot.

I am guessing here but I do understand why they want people to open source the management code of minio and in some cases how it is integrated into a product. I understand that AGPL might not be written for these requirements but I think it is time for a new such license.

If it is part of a SaaS product that is sold I can definitely understand why this is important.

5. dns_snek ◴[22 Oct 25 09:31 UTC] No.45666683{3}[source]▶
Archive link: https://web.archive.org/web/20230327211209/https://min.io/co...
6. Tepix ◴[22 Oct 25 09:32 UTC] No.45666692{3}[source]▶
Yes, the page at https://www.min.io/opensource no longer contains this phrase. It sounds reasonable now. I guess they talked to a lawyer.
7. fukka42 ◴[22 Oct 25 11:51 UTC] No.45667682{3}[source]▶
Did they ever get permissions from their contributors to switch to AGPL? Last I checked they did not. They didn't require a CLA either.

So no matter what they claim large parts of the codebase are still apache2.

replies(1): >>45670444 #
8. the_mitsuhiko ◴[22 Oct 25 15:16 UTC] No.45670444{4}[source]▶
It wouldn't matter anyways, you cannot relicense historic releases.
replies(1): >>45670505 #
9. fukka42 ◴[22 Oct 25 15:20 UTC] No.45670505{5}[source]▶
It does matter, since the current AGPL license status is questionable at best, they did not have permission to relicense code added by contributors. This is why CLAs exist.
replies(1): >>45672460 #
10. the_mitsuhiko ◴[22 Oct 25 17:35 UTC] No.45672460{6}[source]▶
If you don't have a CLA you just end up with the new changes being AGPL which creates a mixed license amalgamation which in practical terms regresses down to the stricter of the licenses which would be the AGPL.