Hacker News Reader

Comment by pabs3 | Hacker News Reader

Will revoking their license stop Nutanix from using MinIO or will they have to go to court to get them to stop? I don't see any mention of a lawsuit in the post.

View on HN

My intuition is that they're escalating progressively. Threats and lawsuits, as a general rule, make it more difficult to reach an amicable resolution. I'm inclined to interpret MinIO's response as a mature and prudent one.

First, revoke the license. That means they are no longer permitted to redistribute the code.

If they then continue to redistribute it, they are committing a copyright violation. That’s when there is cause for a lawsuit.

More than that, they've been given notice, and are willfully distributing it.

There's all kinds of specific legal teeth for that behavior.

It wouldn’t really be a (useful) revocation of the license if they were not legally notified.

They aren't redistributing it at all, only using it.

I’m pretty sure when the license is revoked, that includes the license for using it as well.

The article doesn’t seem to state if they are redistributing it or not, but I’ll take your word for it. Without being a user of the infringing product, I’m not able to tell whose premises the server they SSH’d into is on.

IIRC the AGPL says you don't need a license to use the code, but you do to modify the code, which then triggers the network interaction requirements.

The AGPL network interaction provisions trigger on modification, not redistribution, so you can violate it without redistribution.

Yes, which is the point of AGPL.

>First, revoke the license. That means they are no longer permitted to redistribute the code.

I wonder how it works. What is the act of revoking an open source license exactly? I assume they simply sent a letter and wrote a blog post? Pretty sure in my country it would have no legal force. Is it different in the US?

If it were in my country, you’d send them a notification by registered mail. Then you’d get a receipt that they received it.

As soon as they are in violation of the license, they no longer have permission to redistribute the code, because the license is the only thing that allows that and it only allows that if they are in compliance with the license. So there is cause for a lawsuit immediately, not after any other action.

They could, but clearly according to the article, they are not doing that. They are first revoking the license and notifying the affected party. I assume the lawsuit will be filed as soon as they have evidence that the notification is served yet the violation is continuing.

Same question here, what would be the next step.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com