[giancarlostoro]

Looks like you cleanly point out their violation of the AGPL. I wish I were a lawyer with nothing better to do, I'd definitely be suing the MinIO group, there's no way they can cleanly remove the AGPL code outsiders contributed.

[mbreese]

I don't think there would be an issue with removing AGPL contributed code. You can't force someone to distribute something they don't want to. IANAL, but I believe that what (all?) copyright in software is most concerned with is the active distribution of code -- not the removal of code.

That said, if there was contributed AGPL code, they couldn't change the license on that part of the code w/o a CLA. AGPL also doesn't necessarily mean you have to make the code publicly available, just available to those that you give the program to (I'm assuming AGPL is like the GPL in this regard).

So, that I'd be curious about it is -- (1) is there any contributed AGPL code in the current version? (2) what license is granted to customers of the enterprise version?

Minio can completely use whatever license they want for their code. But, if there was contributed code w/o a CLA, then I'm not sure how a commercial/enterprise license would play with contriubuted AGPL code. It would be an interesting question to find out.

[kragen]

> AGPL also doesn't necessarily mean you have to make the code publicly available, just available to those that you give the program to (I'm assuming AGPL is like the GPL in this regard).

This is the crucial difference between the AGPL and the GPL: the AGPL requires you to make the code available to users for whom you run the code, as well as users you give the program to.

[mbreese]

But, for minio, the users aren't the public... the users are their enterprise customers (now). So, to fulfill the AGPL, they'd have to give the code to their users, but that doesn't necessarily mean to the public at large (via GitHub).

But, what I don't know is -- is there any other AGPL code that minio doesn't own, but that was otherwise contributed to minio? Because, presumably, they aren't actually giving their customers the minio program with an AGPL license, rather they have whatever their enterprise license agreement is. If this is the case, and there is AGPL code that's not owned by Minio, I can foresee problems in the future.

[kragen]

I agree with all of that.

[giancarlostoro]

That's definitely not how its written or interpreted. Microsoft had to release code because they touched GPL code some years back I think it was for HyperV? We're talking about a company with many lawyers at the ready not being able to skirt the GPL in any way, like undoing the code.

Additionally, in order to CHANGE the license, if others contributed code under that license, you would need their permission, on top of the fact, you cannot retroactively revoke the license for previous versions.

[mbreese]

What I'm really curious about is if their most recent enterprise versions/code must be released under AGPL. And if so, can they restrict customers from distributing AGPL'd code through an enterprise contract?

I can't see how this is a defensible position for Minio, but I'm not sure they really care that much at this point.

[giancarlostoro]

That would be a violation of the AGPL.

[bityard]

I don't see a contributor licensing agreement (CLA), so you may be right.

(I personally choose not to contribute to projects with CLAs, I don't want my contributions to become closed-source in the future.)

[giancarlostoro]

Its worse than I thought:

https://blog.min.io/weka-violates-minios-open-source-license...

They think they can revoke someone's AGPL license. That's not at all how that license works!

[kstrauser]

I think that's exactly how that license works. Basically, the license is the only thing that grants you rights to redistribute the licensed work. Copyright law otherwise forbids it. And the license itself only grants you the right to redistribute the work as long as you comply with its terms. If you violate them, the license no longer applies, and you no longer have any legal right to distribute the work or any derived works.

I have zero knowledge about the squabble between MinIO and Weka. I don't know, and don't care, if either of them is in the right. But if Weka isn't complying with the terms of the AGPL, then MinIO has the legal right to tell them they can no longer distribute MinIO's licensed work at all, because nothing else grants them that privilege.

If that weren't true, there'd be no teeth to the A?GPL whatsoever.

[_cenw]

MinIO the corporation is not the sole licencor of MinIO the source code. They could sue and probably enforce compliance, but they can't just revoke the license like it is an overly restrictive commercial EULA.

[kstrauser]

They absolutely can revoke the license on all their own code, or any code signed over to them with a CLA. But really, they don’t have to revoke anything. The license does that automatically: you’re only allowed to redistribute GPL/AGPL licensed software as long as you comply with the terms. If you stop complying, the license ceases granting you permission automatically.

[kragen]

Yes, it is. Although https://www.gnu.org/licenses/agpl-3.0.html says

> All rights granted under this License are granted for the term of copyright on the Program, and are irrevocable provided the stated conditions are met.

it also says

> You may not propagate or modify a covered work except as expressly provided under this License. Any attempt otherwise to propagate or modify it is void, and will automatically terminate your rights under this License (including any patent licenses granted under the third paragraph of section 11).

> However, if you cease all violation of this License, then your license from a particular copyright holder is reinstated (a) provisionally, unless and until the copyright holder explicitly and finally terminates your license, and (b) permanently, if the copyright holder fails to notify you of the violation by some reasonable means prior to 60 days after the cessation.

> Moreover, your license from a particular copyright holder is reinstated permanently if the copyright holder notifies you of the violation by some reasonable means, this is the first time you have received notice of violation of this License (for any work) from that copyright holder, and you cure the violation prior to 30 days after your receipt of the notice.

This is in common with the GPLv3. It is much longer than the corresponding terms of the GPLv2 to remedy a sort of fragility in the GPLv2 which says your license terminates permanently if you ever violate the GPL, even temporarily and by accident.

I have no knowledge of whether Weka did or didn't violate the license, but if they did violate it and refused to fix it, MinIO's revocation of their license is completely in accordance with the terms of the license as written. I don't think a GPL termination case has yet been litigated.

[roblabla]

> I don't think a GPL violation case has yet been litigated.

It has, though it has mainly been under the "breach of contract" approach and not under "copyright infringement" approach. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_source_license_litigation

[kragen]

Of course you're correct. I meant to say no GPL termination case, and I've corrected my comment to say that. By that I mean cases where the defendant had cured their breach of the GPL but continued exercising the rights the GPL would have given them but for the termination clause.

[EgoIncarnate]

MinIO had a de facto CLA. MinIO required contributors to license their code to the project maintainers (only) under Apache 2. Not as bad as copyright assignment, but still asymmetric (they can relicense for commercial use, but you only get AGPL). https://github.com/minio/minio/blob/master/.github/PULL_REQU...

[EgoIncarnate]

MinIO had a de facto CLA. MinIO required contributors to license their code to the project maintainers (only) under Apache 2. Not as bad as copyright assignment, but still asymmetric (they can relicense for commercial use, but you only get AGPL). https://github.com/minio/minio/blob/master/.github/PULL_REQU...

[uroni]

I'm not a contributor to Minio. This is its own separate thing.

I do have a separate AGPL project (see github) where I have nearly all of the copyright and have looked into how one would be able to enforce this in the US at some point and it did look pretty bleak -- it is a civil suit where you have to show damages etc. but IANAL.

I did not like the FUD they were spreading about AGPL at the time since it is a good license for end-user applications.

[giancarlostoro]

Oh I didn't mean to imply yours was, yours is C++ theirs is Go. The AGPL is fine, not a license for me, but its fine. I'm more of an MIT license kind of guy. If you're going to do the AGPL thing and then try to secure funding, make sure you own the whole thing first.