5 ms·

Any recommendations on MinIO forks or open-source alternatives with more welcoming licenses? They changed their license from Apache recently. https://en.wikipe

by henvic 4y ago

Any recommendations on MinIO forks or open-source alternatives with more welcoming licenses? They changed their license from Apache recently. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MinIO#Re-licensing https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MinIO#Re-licensing

dikei 4y ago
There are quite a few Storage projects out there with a S3-compatible API storage, that can be used in place of Minio such as Ceph, Openstack Swift, SeaweedFS, etc.. Of course, they all differ in subtle ways, so you have to try for yourself.
- acatton 4y ago
  The CNCF maintains a list of closed and opensource container-friendly storage backends: https://landscape.cncf.io/card-mode?category=cloud-native-storage&grouping=category https://landscape.cncf.io/card-mode?category=cloud-native-st...
- neverartful 4y ago
  No one in their right mind would attempt to use Ceph in place of MinIO. Yes, Ceph can provide S3 compliant object storage via the RadosGW, but the effort and footprint is not worth it for MinIO use cases. On the other hand, OpenStack Swift's all-in-one (typically used by developers) could easily be a replacement of MinIO.
  - monkius90s 4y ago
    I admit personal bias, but that's no longer the only way to deploy Ceph object storage these days. (And full-blown Ceph is rather good when you in fact require resilience and very large scale.)
acatton 4y ago
How is the AGPL not welcoming?[1] [1] https://drewdevault.com/2020/07/27/Anti-AGPL-propaganda.html https://drewdevault.com/2020/07/27/Anti-AGPL-propaganda.html
- CarVac 4y ago
  It's only not welcoming to those who wish to close the source. It's the paradox of tolerance: you must not tolerate those who find others intolerable.
  - vlovich123 4y ago
    That’s one perspective and while I understand it it’s not one I’ve agreed with. An alternate view is that it forces all parts of your tech stack to be open sourced even things that have nothing to do with, or at most ancillary relation to the relevant service. OSS software is valuable but AGPL steps (in my view anyway) waaaay outside of what’s reasonable to try to prevent servicifying OSS. I think most companies would be fine with a GPL-like license that forced you to share the source for that code even if it’s behind a service. The viral nature of AGPL makes it toxic to almost everyone unless you’re willing to pay the copyright holders for special permission. That’s certainly fine but to me it’s less OSS and more like a viral source available license.
    - moochmooch 4y ago
      it stops low effort grifting of network-enabled open source for cash.
    - CarVac 4y ago
      The point of GPL-alikes is to ensure user freedom: that the user can modify the code of any software they use. If a company is intolerant of this, then the AGPL is intolerant of that company.
  - acatton 4y ago
    Alternative point of view: opensource isn't the same as freeloading
- Aeolun 4y ago
  > Any derivative works of AGPL-licensed software must also use the AGPL. It’s a viral license. It infects everything it touches.

by henvic 4y ago

dikei 4y ago

There are quite a few Storage projects out there with a S3-compatible API storage, that can be used in place of Minio such as Ceph, Openstack Swift, SeaweedFS, etc.. Of course, they all differ in subtle ways, so you have to try for yourself.

acatton 4y ago
The CNCF maintains a list of closed and opensource container-friendly storage backends: https://landscape.cncf.io/card-mode?category=cloud-native-storage&grouping=category https://landscape.cncf.io/card-mode?category=cloud-native-st...
neverartful 4y ago
No one in their right mind would attempt to use Ceph in place of MinIO. Yes, Ceph can provide S3 compliant object storage via the RadosGW, but the effort and footprint is not worth it for MinIO use cases. On the other hand, OpenStack Swift's all-in-one (typically used by developers) could easily be a replacement of MinIO.
- monkius90s 4y ago
  I admit personal bias, but that's no longer the only way to deploy Ceph object storage these days. (And full-blown Ceph is rather good when you in fact require resilience and very large scale.)

acatton 4y ago

How is the AGPL not welcoming?[1] [1] https://drewdevault.com/2020/07/27/Anti-AGPL-propaganda.html https://drewdevault.com/2020/07/27/Anti-AGPL-propaganda.html

CarVac 4y ago
It's only not welcoming to those who wish to close the source. It's the paradox of tolerance: you must not tolerate those who find others intolerable.
- vlovich123 4y ago
  That’s one perspective and while I understand it it’s not one I’ve agreed with. An alternate view is that it forces all parts of your tech stack to be open sourced even things that have nothing to do with, or at most ancillary relation to the relevant service. OSS software is valuable but AGPL steps (in my view anyway) waaaay outside of what’s reasonable to try to prevent servicifying OSS. I think most companies would be fine with a GPL-like license that forced you to share the source for that code even if it’s behind a service. The viral nature of AGPL makes it toxic to almost everyone unless you’re willing to pay the copyright holders for special permission. That’s certainly fine but to me it’s less OSS and more like a viral source available license.
  - moochmooch 4y ago
    it stops low effort grifting of network-enabled open source for cash.
  - CarVac 4y ago
    The point of GPL-alikes is to ensure user freedom: that the user can modify the code of any software they use. If a company is intolerant of this, then the AGPL is intolerant of that company.
- acatton 4y ago
  Alternative point of view: opensource isn't the same as freeloading
Aeolun 4y ago
> Any derivative works of AGPL-licensed software must also use the AGPL. It’s a viral license. It infects everything it touches.