[jan_g]

I don't know about ParadeDB, but this was very off-putting for me in case of Minio when they switched to AGPL. If you check their answers to various license questions, they are essentially this: if you use Minio in your stack/product (for profit), then we recommend our commercial license or consult with a lawyer if your use case is covered by AGPL or not.

What me and I guess many others wanted was a simple yes/no to the following: if I use Minio in my stack without modifications (as a file server that my other services interact with via an API), do I have to AGPL all the stuff the touches Minio or not? And they do not want to answer this question. I do not understand why is it so hard to answer clearly. I understand that the majority of opinions is that it's fine to use without modifications, but I wanted a clear statement from authors of Minio. Failing that, I then decided to keep the pre-AGPL version for a while and have transitioned away from Minio since then.

[brightball]

This feels like dealing with government agencies where you go out of your way to get clarification to make sure you are doing everything correctly, but they refuse to give a clear answer to they can bother you about it later.

[belorn]

Copyright does not have clear answers. Teachers has always wanted a clear answer to "how many pages can I copy from a book", and they usually get the same answer. There is no cleanly defined number of pages, but fair use do exist so they have to apply they own judgement in each case.

The same questions has been asked about how many seconds of TV/radio is fair to copy, for example as stock footage or in reviews. Many people will say something like "3-5 seconds generally accepted", but each creator has to apply their own judgement per case.

What is a derivative work is one of the most debated aspect of copyright law, likely only second to fair use debates. Only a court of law has any real ability to give a clear answer and then only to a specific case.

[hitekker]

A hilarious sentiment. If it's true, then these companies marketing their OSS creds are merely disguising their desire to be the next Oracle.

[ashkankiani]

Copying reply to a child comment:

"This License explicitly affirms your unlimited permission to run the unmodified Program."

In the Basic permissions of the actual content of the license https://github.com/minio/minio/blob/master/LICENSE

It's not that difficult to parse if you actually read it top to bottom instead of skimming.

[jan_g]

But you forgot to cite the next sentence:

   The output from running a covered work is covered by this License only if the output, given its content, constitutes a covered work.

So, what is 'covered work'? The license says this:

    A "covered work" means either the unmodified Program or a work based on the Program.

Do you still think it's clearly written license? To me it's dubious enough that I wanted an explicit answer from the authors of Minio. Failing to get it, I decided to move away from Minio.

[camgunz]

No, the whole idea of the AGPL is to make you release modifications even if you're not distributing (i.e. a web app). No modifications, no release.

[dspillett]

The question isn't about modifications to the library/service itself, but whether with other code linking to it in any way is what you have considered a derivative work that should also be covered by the AGPL.

For a library I'd say that was a definite yes. For a service it is someone's less clear, some provide connective tissue (language bindings or other access modules) under less strict licenses which creates an obvious break in the chain, without that or very definite answers to the question on the post you replied to it is unclear how tightly coupled you need to be to need to use AGPL for your own work and I would err on the side of assuming (because it is GPL based) any coupling would have that effect.

Not that this would put me off using LGPL, but it is just as disconcerting, if not more so, to commercial interests, as the GPL is.

[knorker]

IANAL, but I'd also be worried that even if the project answers your question, maybe any one individual contributor to the project could sue you if they disagree.

Only if the project doesn't have copyright reassignment, of course.

[goodpoint]

> if I use Minio in my stack without modifications (as a file server that my other services interact with via an API), do I have to AGPL all the stuff the touches Minio or not

No and it's spelled out very clearly in the license.

[mrbluecoat]

I think the length of this HN discussion is evidence enough that AGPL isn't clear.

In my experience, organizations that use AGPL do so to 1) ward off an active non-paying community with its associated support cost, 2) claim open source to help convince you to buy their software/service, 3) hire skill-vetted programmers, 4) allow third-party security audits, and/or 5) avoid being jaded by someone that can market or host their solution better than they can.

[yencabulator]

Only after people badgered them to remove their claim that anything communicating with Minio gets infected by AGPL immediately. Their compliance page used to claim:

> 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.

That version has, unfortunately, not been archived at web.archive.org or such.

Some remnants of the old compliance text are still mentioned: https://github.com/minio/operator/issues/2030

[haytamoptika]

https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.en.html "However, in many cases you can distribute the GPL-covered software alongside your proprietary system. To do this validly, you must make sure that the free and nonfree programs communicate at arms length, that they are not combined in a way that would make them effectively a single program."

I think you can interact with GPL/AGPL and retain your code propietary by:

- Don't modify the AGPL program.

- Run separatly, using docker container, vm etc

- Interact with CLI, REST API, filesystem, database etc

- Keep the AGPL interaction only to your program, non public consumption, minimum the surface of distirbution the code.

- Keep your code non directly interact, such as avoid use node npm dependencies directly, avoid library linking, use api gateway, use thirdparty module.

[zadokshi]

No it is not clearly spelled out. So I am wondering why you think it is clear. Perhaps you are misunderstanding the problem that is being raised? I’m not sure.

[afro88]

Is it? Doesn't it depend on whether your stack depends on it to function, or if it is standalone that your stack can connect to but doesn't rely on?