← Back to context

Comment by endigma

3 years ago

I recall minio previously playing fast and loose with the terms of their prized infectious foss license, a github issue perhaps? I recall they believed that interfacing with their AGPL minio through a standard s3 interface with no source changes mandated open sourcing of the client application.

7 comments

endigma

Reply
lyu07282  3 years ago

They have a unique interpretation of AGPL, they also seem to think they can retroactively change the license from Apache 2 to AGPL on their old code. So even if WEKA forked the older version of MinIO when it still was Apache they would still violate the license. Which means anyone using MinIO without a commercial license needs to open source their entire application regardless if MinIO itself was modified or not. Well according to MinIO anyway.

This eventually surely lead to a lawsuit where this is tested, but in the meantime I would avoid MinIO at all cost. The commercial license to self host it is minimum $1000 per month for 100TB.

> If you distribute, host or create derivative works of the MinIO software over the network, the GNU AGPL v3 license requires that you also distribute the complete, corresponding source code of the combined work under the same GNU AGPL v3 license. This requirement applies whether or not you modified MinIO.

https://min.io/pricing

  • asveikau  3 years ago

    That sounds dangerous to free software/open source as a whole. Firstly, it's obviously not the status quo of how most people operate. Secondly, if they manage to win that claim in court it could encourage others to do the same.

    • lyu07282  3 years ago

      It is, just listen to what they think modification of software means:

      > To "modify" MinIO means to copy from or adapt all or any part of the work in a fashion requiring copyright permission, other than the making of an exact copy. The resulting derivative work is sometimes referred to as a "modified version" or we say that it is "based on" the earlier work. > Passing configuration parameters to a MinIO binary instance constitutes making a modified version, as it does not produce an exact binary copy.

      and what derivative works mean:

      > Combining MinIO software as part of a larger software stack triggers your GNU AGPL v3 obligations. > The method of combining does not matter. 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.

      Needless to say that's all completely wrong and just FUD. I think the FSF should get involved they are damaging free software as a whole. Incredibly scummy company.

      https://min.io/compliance

    • endigma  3 years ago

      It sucks how they try to use their license as a weapon rather than a shield, these things are designed to protect projects from unattributed use or modification without releasing the improvements, not meant to be used as a big stick to force people into a corporate dual license to be able to use it for anything real.

xet7  3 years ago

Maybe these?

https://github.com/minio/minio/discussions/12895

https://min.io/compliance

Trying to read and understand.

  • dilyevsky  3 years ago

    Basically they claim that even calling it from proprietary stack over s3 api triggers apgl obligations which most lawyers don’t believe is true but never been tested in court afaik. I wouldn’t recommend touching it for anything unless you want to play those games (or unless you want to pay for enterprise ofc =)) It’s fake open source.