5 ms·

Weka Violates MinIO's Open Source Licenses

90 points by tiernano 4y ago

beckhamc 4y ago
Not to be confused with open source ML toolkit WEKA: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weka_(machine_learning) https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weka_(machine_learning) Huh, that's funny, I guess which one came first?
- Alifatisk 4y ago
  I really thought this was about Weka (the ml lib)
- shrikant 4y ago
  I thought this was about the ML toolkit too. I remember trying to use it in a toy project way back in... mid noughties sometime, along with adjacent tools Kettle and Mondrian, so pretty sure that came first!
ssddanbrown 4y ago
Interesting case. Based upon the screenshots, it doesn't looking like they're trying to hide things though. Not like a typical fork and hide-via-rebrand. The web UI still shows Minio, and the CLI example shows the Minio copyright and link to the codebase repo. I'd be interested to know if the "About" link in show shown WebUI screenshot goes to Minio or Weka. If it goes to Minio, could that be considered (combined with the minio branding) showing attribution? Has a Weka customer been rejected sources upon request for the AGPL works (Or been told they're soley using the apache code)? There's also an interesting question of how the GPL/AGPL copyleft acts in this mode of distribution. From the screenshot, they're distributed in a single ZIP but the (potential AGPL) works appear to be in their own image. So does that act as separate networked applications, and therefore copyleft does not affect the other images (bit still with a requirement to share sources with the AGPL) or does that count as a single combined works?
- y4m4b4 4y ago
  Attribution needs to be explicit for Open Source Licenses prominently available for customers to look at. Making money off from another product calling it your own innovation is plagiarism. https://www.weka.io/blog/cloud-storage/amazon-s3-protocol/ https://www.weka.io/blog/cloud-storage/amazon-s3-protocol/ There is never a mention of that it uses MinIO underneath.
  - ssddanbrown 4y ago
    But it explicitly shows that it's using Minio when the application is actually used? Sure, it's totally uncool to not mention Minio on their site and that's a massive shame but, as far as I'm aware, nothing in the license would require Weka to explicitly mention they're using Minio in their advertising/marketing like the provided link?
- Confiks 4y ago
  > Based upon the screenshots, it doesn't looking like they're trying to hide things though. The screenshots are produced by manually mounting a squashfs, locating a minio binary and running it. It's not a very clear (and completely convincing) demonstration, and IMO could better have been left out.
- bdcravens 4y ago
  The screenshots weren't of Weka's UI, but of Minio's after you manually extract those binaries. I'm not familiar with Weka, but it would be easy enough to stand up the Minio server and communicate internally over the S3 protocol, and never show any native Minio screens.
lopkeny12ko 4y ago
> Weka is one such company and as you will find below, they are distributing the entire MinIO binary in their product, without attribution, to implement their object storage functionality. What's the point of making MinIO an open source product if you subsequently then get mad that someone else is using your open source product? All this article tells me is that MinIO is not truly "open source." This acts as a great warning to stay away from MinIO. Shame, because I was a big fan in its early days, and actually ran a deployment myself before they started introducing an entire host of anti-features.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- qubidt 4y ago
  did you just learn about copyleft? It's not a new concept
- JCWasmx86 4y ago
  Open source does not mean "I take random projects, integrate them into my product, without any credits, without any acknowledgments". It means "I take projects, integrate them into my product and follow the minor implications of the license" For example the MIT-License has a rule: The above copyright notice and this permission notice shall be included in all copies or substantial portions of the Software. And as far as I can see from this article, there was no acknowledgment. According to tldrlegal (Sadly don't have the time to read through the entire AGPL license): https://www.tldrlegal.com/license/gnu-affero-general-public-license-v3-agpl-3-0 https://www.tldrlegal.com/license/gnu-affero-general-public-..., you have to include the license and copyright
- olliej 4y ago
  Open source and copy left is explicitly not public domain, which is what you seem to be claiming it is. Open source and copy left has very well established rules and licensing terms. If you are selling a product using OSS software you are agreeing to the terms of that license. The includes both explicitly acknowledging that you are using said product, but also the source code for the version of the OSS project you are using, as well as the changes you have made to that OSS code, and generally any other software you write on top of it. If you don’t want to do that, then you would need a different license that you would have to negotiate with all the copyright owners of the project. If you don’t do that then you have no license to use the software at all, let alone to redistribute it. This isn’t a complicated concept.
gdamore 4y ago
Weka's response to minIO is here: https://www.weka.io/blog/file-system/weka-responds-to-unfounded-allegations-made-by-minio-regarding-open-source-licensing/ https://www.weka.io/blog/file-system/weka-responds-to-unfoun... It is well worth reading.

90 points by tiernano 4y ago

Not to be confused with open source ML toolkit WEKA: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weka_(machine_learning) https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weka_(machine_learning) Huh, that's funny, I guess which one came first?

Alifatisk 4y ago
I really thought this was about Weka (the ml lib)
shrikant 4y ago
I thought this was about the ML toolkit too. I remember trying to use it in a toy project way back in... mid noughties sometime, along with adjacent tools Kettle and Mondrian, so pretty sure that came first!

ssddanbrown 4y ago

Interesting case. Based upon the screenshots, it doesn't looking like they're trying to hide things though. Not like a typical fork and hide-via-rebrand. The web UI still shows Minio, and the CLI example shows the Minio copyright and link to the codebase repo. I'd be interested to know if the "About" link in show shown WebUI screenshot goes to Minio or Weka. If it goes to Minio, could that be considered (combined with the minio branding) showing attribution? Has a Weka customer been rejected sources upon request for the AGPL works (Or been told they're soley using the apache code)? There's also an interesting question of how the GPL/AGPL copyleft acts in this mode of distribution. From the screenshot, they're distributed in a single ZIP but the (potential AGPL) works appear to be in their own image. So does that act as separate networked applications, and therefore copyleft does not affect the other images (bit still with a requirement to share sources with the AGPL) or does that count as a single combined works?

y4m4b4 4y ago
Attribution needs to be explicit for Open Source Licenses prominently available for customers to look at. Making money off from another product calling it your own innovation is plagiarism. https://www.weka.io/blog/cloud-storage/amazon-s3-protocol/ https://www.weka.io/blog/cloud-storage/amazon-s3-protocol/ There is never a mention of that it uses MinIO underneath.
- ssddanbrown 4y ago
  But it explicitly shows that it's using Minio when the application is actually used? Sure, it's totally uncool to not mention Minio on their site and that's a massive shame but, as far as I'm aware, nothing in the license would require Weka to explicitly mention they're using Minio in their advertising/marketing like the provided link?
Confiks 4y ago
> Based upon the screenshots, it doesn't looking like they're trying to hide things though. The screenshots are produced by manually mounting a squashfs, locating a minio binary and running it. It's not a very clear (and completely convincing) demonstration, and IMO could better have been left out.
bdcravens 4y ago
The screenshots weren't of Weka's UI, but of Minio's after you manually extract those binaries. I'm not familiar with Weka, but it would be easy enough to stand up the Minio server and communicate internally over the S3 protocol, and never show any native Minio screens.

lopkeny12ko 4y ago

> Weka is one such company and as you will find below, they are distributing the entire MinIO binary in their product, without attribution, to implement their object storage functionality. What's the point of making MinIO an open source product if you subsequently then get mad that someone else is using your open source product? All this article tells me is that MinIO is not truly "open source." This acts as a great warning to stay away from MinIO. Shame, because I was a big fan in its early days, and actually ran a deployment myself before they started introducing an entire host of anti-features.

deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
qubidt 4y ago
did you just learn about copyleft? It's not a new concept
JCWasmx86 4y ago
Open source does not mean "I take random projects, integrate them into my product, without any credits, without any acknowledgments". It means "I take projects, integrate them into my product and follow the minor implications of the license" For example the MIT-License has a rule: The above copyright notice and this permission notice shall be included in all copies or substantial portions of the Software. And as far as I can see from this article, there was no acknowledgment. According to tldrlegal (Sadly don't have the time to read through the entire AGPL license): https://www.tldrlegal.com/license/gnu-affero-general-public-license-v3-agpl-3-0 https://www.tldrlegal.com/license/gnu-affero-general-public-..., you have to include the license and copyright
olliej 4y ago
Open source and copy left is explicitly not public domain, which is what you seem to be claiming it is. Open source and copy left has very well established rules and licensing terms. If you are selling a product using OSS software you are agreeing to the terms of that license. The includes both explicitly acknowledging that you are using said product, but also the source code for the version of the OSS project you are using, as well as the changes you have made to that OSS code, and generally any other software you write on top of it. If you don’t want to do that, then you would need a different license that you would have to negotiate with all the copyright owners of the project. If you don’t do that then you have no license to use the software at all, let alone to redistribute it. This isn’t a complicated concept.

gdamore 4y ago

Weka's response to minIO is here: https://www.weka.io/blog/file-system/weka-responds-to-unfounded-allegations-made-by-minio-regarding-open-source-licensing/ https://www.weka.io/blog/file-system/weka-responds-to-unfoun... It is well worth reading.