[jefftk]

"You can't relicense something that is Apache 2.0 as AGPL. You need explicit approval of every single contributor" is false.

Anyone can take an existing Apache 2.0 project and change the license to AGPL 3.0. This does not require the approval of any prior contributor. Of course people can continue using versions released under Apache 2.0 under the terms of that license, but even then "approval of every single contributor" is irrelevant. See https://www.apache.org/licenses/GPL-compatibility.html

The situation where you do need the approval of past contributors is when you want to switch between incompatible licenses. For example, if they had previously released it as AGPL 3.0 and wanted to move to Apache 2.0.

(also not a lawyer)

[Benjamin_Dobell]

> Anyone can take an existing Apache 2.0 project and change the license to AGPL 3.0.

No, you cannot. The very page you've linked to makes this clear:

> Apache 2 software can therefore be included in GPLv3 projects, because the GPLv3 license accepts our software into GPLv3 works

This is precisely what I've written. You can also apply the AGPLv3, you cannot remove the Apache 2.0. The contributions made under Apache 2.0, are still under Apache 2.0. The Apache 2.0 allows sub-licensing, so any contributor who uses those contributions from now is accepting them under the AGPLv3 and Apache 2.0. The former does not supplant the latter.

[wegs2]

You're reading it wrong.

If we were to read this like a piece of computer code, the incompatibility would be mutual. GPL code does not permit further restrictions. "You cannot remove Apache 2.0" would be a further restriction. Ergo, you couldn't incorporate.

It's just that this isn't how you read or interpret legal text.

The linked page is correct. You can incorporate/sublicense Apache code into GPL code. You can't do the reverse.

[Benjamin_Dobell]

You really don't seem to understand this at all.

Please, please stop telling people they can go ahead and do something.

Also, please stop suggesting that reading a license is a bad idea. That's horrible advice. (For readers, see comment below).

We're expected to sign/accept agreements near daily. The very nature of legal agreements is such that they must be written in a fashion that is clear in it's meaning, or else there's ambiguity in its interpretation, which means courts are not going to enforce it.

Of course it's ideal to sit down with a lawyer when doing so. However, it's pathetically idealistic to pretend that every open source project on Github has done just that.

The Apache 2.0 is its own license. There's nothing in the Apache 2.0 license about the GPL.

GPL was written by the GNU Foundation and they have their own interpretation about what licenses are compatible. Seems as that list isn't incorporated in the license itself, they're nothing more than guidelines.

However, let's see what GNU have to say about the Apache 2.0 license (https://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.en.html#apache2):

> This is a free software license, compatible with version 3 of the GNU GPL.

> Please note that this license is not compatible with GPL version 2, because it has some requirements that are not in that GPL version. These include certain patent termination and indemnification provisions. The patent termination provision is a good thing, which is why we recommend the Apache 2.0 license for substantial programs over other lax permissive licenses.

Even the GNU Foundation acknowledge that extra requirements of the Apache 2.0 make the license incompatible with the GPLv2. They do however claim it's GPLv3 compatible.

Great, their interpretation is that GPLv3 software can include Apache 2.0 software. Good on them. GNU Foundation (and the Apache Software Foundation) are not involved in the legal agreement made between a contributor and an open source project. Their opinion is irrelevant. The open source project has to adhere to the legal agreements they have made!

Licenses aren't magic, they're the same as every other agreement two parties make. If you want to update the terms of an agreement you've made with someone - you need a new agreement, with all parties involved!

Note that it's not uncommon for EULAs to contain clauses stating they're free to arbitrarily alter the terms, time and time again these clauses have been ruled as invalid.

In this case, by removing the Apache 2.0 license text, and not adhering to the terms of the Apache 2.0, Minio are not adhering to agreement they've made with contributors. It's really that simple. What the GNU Foundation claim is irrelevant, they're not a party involved in that agreement.

I could write a license right now:

> By adhering to this totally legit license, you're also in adherence with all other agreements you've ever made, but like, you don't need to follow their terms anymore, just our terms. Is all good. Don't worry.

That's not how licenses work. It's complete insanity that anyone could possibly think that a third-party has the right to alter the agreement, or interpretation of an agreement you've made with someone else.

Mind you, the GNU Foundation aren't stupid, nowhere do they claim that the GPLv3 can supplant Apache 2.0. They just say they'll permit Apache 2.0 in GPLv3 software. They most certainly do not claim you no longer need to honour the Apache 2.0. That's nonsense.

Stop, just stop it.

EDIT: Just to clarify, here is what the Apache 2.0 license says about incorporating Apache 2.0 licensed software in another project with a different license:

> You may add Your own copyright statement to Your modifications and may provide additional or different license terms and conditions for use, reproduction, or distribution of Your modifications, or for any such Derivative Works as a whole, provided Your use, reproduction, and distribution of the Work otherwise complies with the conditions stated in this License.

Note that they specifically permit that, as long as you continue to comply with the conditions of Apache 2.0 license.

> The linked page is correct. You can incorporate/sublicense Apache code into GPL code. You can't do the reverse.

That's not what Minio have done! Have you opened the link?

They deleted the Apache 2.0 license from the entire repo. Removing the Apache 2.0 license is an egregious violation of the Apache 2.0 license's terms.