alt Hacker NewsI 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.
Replies
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.
> 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.