Comment by the_mitsuhiko
4 months ago
They 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
> "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."
Yes, the page at https://www.min.io/opensource no longer contains this phrase. It sounds reasonable now. I guess they talked to a lawyer.
Archive link: https://web.archive.org/web/20230327211209/https://min.io/co...
Did 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.
It wouldn't matter anyways, you cannot relicense historic releases.
It 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.
1 reply →