←back to thread

672 points LexSiga | 4 comments | | HN request time: 0.9s | source
Show context
the_mitsuhiko ◴[] No.45666503[source]
MinIO was already before tricky because their interpretation of the AGPL is way to broad.
replies(2): >>45666556 #>>45666609 #
stanac ◴[] 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 #
the_mitsuhiko ◴[] 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 #
1. fukka42 ◴[] No.45667682[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 #
2. the_mitsuhiko ◴[] No.45670444[source]
It wouldn't matter anyways, you cannot relicense historic releases.
replies(1): >>45670505 #
3. fukka42 ◴[] No.45670505[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 #
4. the_mitsuhiko ◴[] No.45672460{3}[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.