[yjftsjthsd-h]

> Incidentally, the Apache 2.0 is a terrible license for modern open source, and it probably shouldn't be used.

It's been a while since I've paid attention; what's wrong with it? It's just a permissive license with some patent stuff added, isn't it?

[Benjamin_Dobell]

Please see the EDIT.

[yjftsjthsd-h]

As of 2021-04-24T00:14:57Z, your edits don't appear to answer what problems you have with Apache 2.0? You've only said that people should read it and talked about its interactions with AGPL.

[Benjamin_Dobell]

I asked people to read the license, it's all explained in the license. There's no ambiguity, it's really clear cut.

Seems as that's apparently an unreasonable expectation, I'll quote a previous HN comment I've made in regard to Apache 2.0:

> I think this is a common misconception. The Apache 2.0 license isn't all that similar to simpler licenses BSD/MIT/X11.

> Apache 2.0 has some clauses which (most people tend to ignore and which) make it somewhat incompatible with modern open-source fork and pull request workflows.

> In particular 4.b)

> > You must cause any modified files to carry prominent notices stating that You changed the files;

> For the most part, people just throw their name in the file, in an attempt to "meet" this requirement without massacring the file header/notice.

> However, if the Apache 2 license is taken at face value, when you fork and modify a file, you have to mark it as such. Then when you submit back, the project (in adherence with the Apache 2.0 license) has to retain this notice. Technically the project may even then need to add their own notice to indicate they modified the file since you did.

> Clearly, that's not tenable, so most (small) projects just offer leeway. Larger projects instead have contributor agreements (AOSP and alike).

[hda2]

And how does this prevent minio from re-licensing their project to AGPL? I still don't see the issue.

[Benjamin_Dobell]

Because "re-licensing" isn't a thing. If you (or anyone else) can point me to a single piece of legislation in any jurisdiction that has a concept of "re-licensing" I'll be very surprised.

In fact, I'd be quite surprised to see any ruling from a country that practices common law mention "re-licensing".

It's simply not a thing. These licenses are agreements you accept in order to be granted rights that you would otherwise not have, due to intellectual property law.

If the license doesn't explicitly grant you the ability to "re-license" (and explain what the heck that actually is), then you can't do it.

The Apache 2.0 does grant you some rights regarding licensing, but re-licensing isn't mentioned, because no such concept exists.

[hda2]

You're conflating two separate issues together:

1. Re-licesing the whole project is absolutely a thing. As authors of minio, the project has copyright over the combined work and are free to relicense code as long as they don't violate the Apache 2.0. Seeing that the AGPL does not violate this license. This is exactly what minio has done.

2. Unilaterally changing the license of files contributed under Apache 2.0 is not a thing without permission from the authors of said contributions. This is not what minio has done. If minio has tried to do this, they will be committing copyright infringement.