4 ms·
Do you have a link? I want to read more about that. Did they interpret any use as deriving from minio?
by stanac 1y ago
Do you have a link? I want to read more about that. Did they interpret any use as deriving from minio?
- the_mitsuhiko 1y agoThey 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 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."
- dns_snek 1y agoArchive link: https://web.archive.org/web/20230327211209/https://min.io/compliance https://web.archive.org/web/20230327211209/https://min.io/co...
- Tepix 1y agoYes, the page at https://www.min.io/opensource https://www.min.io/opensource no longer contains this phrase. It sounds reasonable now. I guess they talked to a lawyer.
- fukka42 1y agoDid 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.
- the_mitsuhiko 1y agoIt wouldn't matter anyways, you cannot relicense historic releases.
- fukka42 1y agoIt 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.
- the_mitsuhiko 1y agoIf 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.