Comment by 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.
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
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.