Comment by jarym

4 years ago

Kudos for MinIO team for spending THREE YEARS trying to resolve this. Shame that they had to resort to a public naming and shaming but sometimes corporate entities are tone deaf.

Now this is exposed the next question is if Nutanix Objects is just a MinIO wrapper then what value are they even proving here?

5 comments

jarym

Reply
bayesian_horse  4 years ago

That also means Nutanix is pretty sure they are covered, legally.

  • cpach  4 years ago

    I don’t follow. What case would they have to not follow the AGPL…?

    • mbreese  4 years ago

      Who said this is the AGPL version of MinIO? It was only a little over a year ago that they changed from Apache to AGPL. MinIO wrote that they only suspected an AGPL violation. Most their accusation was focused on the Apache license.

      There would still need to be an acknowledgment from the NOTICES file, but that’s it.

      1 reply →

    • bayesian_horse  4 years ago

      I don't know. But they have been thoroughly informed of the issue and have not acted. Thus I conclude they most likely feel they don't need to act.