You'd think Nutanix would have the brains to change the names of the deployed binaries, which brings up an interesting question. How do you detect license violation if the violator has replaced the brand name across the codebase?
Alternate interpretation: Nutanix is fully compliant with the terms of Apache 2 and refused to be extorted into paying MinIO money.
The press release is high on FUD (can’t revoke an irrevocable license, no evidence presented they have deployed the AGPLv3 version) and low on details why it took them three years to issue a press release when an injunction would have been granted pretty quick if Nutanix were truly in violation of the Apache license.
I don’t claim to know the details but I do know a little bit the rights under Apache2 and (unless my understanding is incorrect) MinIO’s claims are baffling.
Patterns of strings, function names, other symbols and the entire call graph usually show up in the compiled binary, unless they apply some sort of obfuscator to the process.
