9 ms·

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 que

by jan_g 2y ago

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.

knorker 2y ago
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.
camgunz 2y ago
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 2y ago
  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.
  - franga2000 2y ago
    The "any coupling" logic would also make anything running on Linux GPL, which is definitely not the case. Using background service such as Minio as an unmodified black box for data storage as part of your app is unambiguously not derivative work. If you were to write something like a management UI for Minio and offer it with your hosted Minio service, then I can at least see the argument, although it still doesn't count under my reading of the AGPL.
    - actionfromafar 2y ago
      The Linux GPL license has an explicit excemption for binaries running under Linux. So it's not a great example. https://github.com/torvalds/linux/blob/master/LICENSES/exceptions/Linux-syscall-note https://github.com/torvalds/linux/blob/master/LICENSES/excep...
    - dspillett 2y ago
      The "or very definite answers to the question" is important there. Linus has explicitly answered the question, and if you use any of the Linux headers then yes you should release that software under the GPL. Under this circumstance your "which is definitely not the case" is incorrect. [EDIT: after reading the information in the link provided by actionfromafar, I'm pull that back a bit: headers marked appropriately can be used and provided a shield similar to scales via glibc & similar (see below) - but check any headers you do use to make sure that they are in fact thusly marked (and note that this goes back to my "… or very definitely answers the question")] It has also explicitly been said that making calls to the kernel indirectly by other means does not carry the same requirement, so if you use glibc (to give what is perhaps the most common example) and it causes the kernel to be called, you do not inherit GPL requirements from the kernel. What requirements you inherit depend on the license of the library, in this example LGPL which is glibc's license and that doesn't confer any such requirement from linking or other such coupling. Whether this indirect call via another library that isn't itself GPL licensed acting as a shield holds generally, or just where explicitly stated as with Linux, I'm not sure off the top of my head. I'd have to reread the licence to refresh myself on the exact details and that isn't something I have the time to do right now, but in the case of Linux it doesn't matter if that is a general property or not because of specific things that have been officially stated. There is a further exception that allows the making of binary blobs to act as drivers and such writing the kernel. I'm not sure if that is just a refinement of the same shield, or something more specific. Again I'd had to reread to be more sure (I've not gone over the "fine print" here in detail for some years). > Using background service such as Minio as an unmodified black box for data storage as part of your app is unambiguously not derivative work. That is certainly the case for LGPL, but by my understanding it isn't for GPL nor by extension AGPL. Minio's maintainers themselves shrug on the matter and suggest you either lawyer up or pay for commercial licensing if your work is not also AGPL and therefore directly compatible (see https://github.com/minio/minio/blob/master/COMPLIANCE.md https://github.com/minio/minio/blob/master/COMPLIANCE.md).
goodpoint 2y ago
> 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.
- zadokshi 2y ago
  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.
- haytamoptika 2y ago
  https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.en.html 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.
  - demurgos 2y ago
    You linked a more general FAQ for the GPL. Would you have a more specific quote or link for interactions with AGPL code?
    - misterio7 2y ago
      AFAIK, the difference between AGPL is GPL is on what constitutes "distribution"; what constitutes a "derivative" is still the same. https://drewdevault.com/2020/07/27/Anti-AGPL-propaganda.html https://drewdevault.com/2020/07/27/Anti-AGPL-propaganda.html
brightball 2y ago
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.
- hitekker 2y ago
  A hilarious sentiment. If it's true, then these companies marketing their OSS creds are merely disguising their desire to be the next Oracle.
- belorn 2y ago
  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.
ashkankiani 2y ago
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 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 2y ago
  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.
  - ashkankiani 2y ago
    If the output of your program is an copy of minio then it is also covered by AGPL is what that means. I think it's just covering the case where you are redistributing minio in a way such as decompressing and producing the output. I still don't think it's that confusing. Unlimited running of it is already covered without exception. The next line only refers to the output of the covered work. If the output of your web server is redistributing minio then you are under AGPL
  - deleted 2y ago
    [deleted]
  - jasode 2y ago
    >Do you still think it's clearly written license? Fyi... a few Google employees talked about similar ambiguous interpretations of AGPL's terms and clauses by Google's legal team review in a past thread: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23966778 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23966778

by jan_g 2y ago

knorker 2y ago

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.

camgunz 2y ago

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 2y ago
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.
- franga2000 2y ago
  The "any coupling" logic would also make anything running on Linux GPL, which is definitely not the case. Using background service such as Minio as an unmodified black box for data storage as part of your app is unambiguously not derivative work. If you were to write something like a management UI for Minio and offer it with your hosted Minio service, then I can at least see the argument, although it still doesn't count under my reading of the AGPL.
  - actionfromafar 2y ago
    The Linux GPL license has an explicit excemption for binaries running under Linux. So it's not a great example. https://github.com/torvalds/linux/blob/master/LICENSES/exceptions/Linux-syscall-note https://github.com/torvalds/linux/blob/master/LICENSES/excep...
  - dspillett 2y ago
    The "or very definite answers to the question" is important there. Linus has explicitly answered the question, and if you use any of the Linux headers then yes you should release that software under the GPL. Under this circumstance your "which is definitely not the case" is incorrect. [EDIT: after reading the information in the link provided by actionfromafar, I'm pull that back a bit: headers marked appropriately can be used and provided a shield similar to scales via glibc & similar (see below) - but check any headers you do use to make sure that they are in fact thusly marked (and note that this goes back to my "… or very definitely answers the question")] It has also explicitly been said that making calls to the kernel indirectly by other means does not carry the same requirement, so if you use glibc (to give what is perhaps the most common example) and it causes the kernel to be called, you do not inherit GPL requirements from the kernel. What requirements you inherit depend on the license of the library, in this example LGPL which is glibc's license and that doesn't confer any such requirement from linking or other such coupling. Whether this indirect call via another library that isn't itself GPL licensed acting as a shield holds generally, or just where explicitly stated as with Linux, I'm not sure off the top of my head. I'd have to reread the licence to refresh myself on the exact details and that isn't something I have the time to do right now, but in the case of Linux it doesn't matter if that is a general property or not because of specific things that have been officially stated. There is a further exception that allows the making of binary blobs to act as drivers and such writing the kernel. I'm not sure if that is just a refinement of the same shield, or something more specific. Again I'd had to reread to be more sure (I've not gone over the "fine print" here in detail for some years). > Using background service such as Minio as an unmodified black box for data storage as part of your app is unambiguously not derivative work. That is certainly the case for LGPL, but by my understanding it isn't for GPL nor by extension AGPL. Minio's maintainers themselves shrug on the matter and suggest you either lawyer up or pay for commercial licensing if your work is not also AGPL and therefore directly compatible (see https://github.com/minio/minio/blob/master/COMPLIANCE.md https://github.com/minio/minio/blob/master/COMPLIANCE.md).

goodpoint 2y ago

> 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.

zadokshi 2y ago
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.
haytamoptika 2y ago
https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.en.html 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.
- demurgos 2y ago
  You linked a more general FAQ for the GPL. Would you have a more specific quote or link for interactions with AGPL code?
  - misterio7 2y ago
    AFAIK, the difference between AGPL is GPL is on what constitutes "distribution"; what constitutes a "derivative" is still the same. https://drewdevault.com/2020/07/27/Anti-AGPL-propaganda.html https://drewdevault.com/2020/07/27/Anti-AGPL-propaganda.html

brightball 2y ago

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.

hitekker 2y ago
A hilarious sentiment. If it's true, then these companies marketing their OSS creds are merely disguising their desire to be the next Oracle.
belorn 2y ago
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.

ashkankiani 2y ago

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 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 2y ago
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.
- ashkankiani 2y ago
  If the output of your program is an copy of minio then it is also covered by AGPL is what that means. I think it's just covering the case where you are redistributing minio in a way such as decompressing and producing the output. I still don't think it's that confusing. Unlimited running of it is already covered without exception. The next line only refers to the output of the covered work. If the output of your web server is redistributing minio then you are under AGPL
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
- jasode 2y ago
  >Do you still think it's clearly written license? Fyi... a few Google employees talked about similar ambiguous interpretations of AGPL's terms and clauses by Google's legal team review in a past thread: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23966778 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23966778