Presumably they've either gotten explicit permission after the fact, rewritten in the commerical product, or the contribution was too minor to be a concern. I don't think they could have put the amount of though needed to ensure they benefit from contributions in a way no one else can, and then also be unaware of license issues with any possible AGPL only contributions.
Requiring AGPL on the contribution would also prevent a rugpull. MinIO went beyond that.
The wording gives an Apache license only to MinIO, not to people who use it. So MinIO can relicense the the contributor code under a commercially viable license, but no one else can. Everyone else will only have access to the contribution under AGPL as part of the whole project.
MinIO had a de facto CLA. MinIO required contributors to license their code to the project maintainers (only) under Apache 2. Not as bad as copyright assignment, but still asymmetric (they can relicense for commercial use, but you only get AGPL).
https://github.com/minio/minio/blob/master/.github/PULL_REQU...
MinIO had a de facto CLA. MinIO required contributors to license their code to the project maintainers (only) under Apache 2. Not as bad as copyright assignment, but still asymmetric (they can relicense for commercial use, but you only get AGPL).
https://github.com/minio/minio/blob/master/.github/PULL_REQU...
MinIO had a de facto CLA. MinIO required contributors to license their code to the project maintainers (only) under Apache 2. Not as bad as copyright assignment, but still asymmetric (they can relicense for commercial use, but you only get AGPL).
https://github.com/minio/minio/blob/master/.github/PULL_REQU...
MinIO had a de facto CLA. MinIO required contributors to license their code to the project maintainers (only) under Apache 2. Not as bad as copyright assignment, but still asymmetric (they can relicense for commercial use, but you only get AGPL).
https://github.com/minio/minio/blob/master/.github/PULL_REQU...
MinIO had a de facto CLA. MinIO required contributors to license their code to the project maintainers (only) under Apache 2. Not as bad as copyright assignment, but still asymmetric (they can relicense for commercial use, but you only get AGPL).
https://github.com/minio/minio/blob/master/.github/PULL_REQU...
GPU access. Actual graphics use is so so, but essential for doing CUDA/AI stuff
Faster file system access on the Linux side (for Linux compiles etc). Ironically, accessing Windows filesystem is slower than WSL1.
Better Linux compatibility.
Vs a Linux VM:
GPU access!
Easier testing for localhost stuff, Linux ports get autoforwarded to Windows (if your test http server is running in WSL2 at port 8080, you can browse to http://localhost:8080 in your Windows browser)
Easy Windows filesystem interaction. Windows local drives show up in /mnt automatically.
Mix Windows commands with Linux commands. I use this for example to pipe strings.exe, which is UTF-16 aware, with Linux text utils.
I think WSL2 tends to be better at sharing memory (releasing unused memory) with the rest of the system than a dedicated VM.
You can mimic some of this stuff to a degree with a VM, but the built in convenience facetor can't be overlooked, and if you are doing CUDA stuff there isn't a good alternative that I am aware of. You could do PCI passthrough using datacenter class GPUs and Windows Server, but $$$.
You're missing some context, it's not bitonic sort itself that would present an issue with GPUs, it's the "with immutable tree rotations" part, which in a naive implementation would imply some kind of memory management that would have trouble scaling to thousands of cores.
I think people might interpret something claiming to be the "Future of Parallel Computing" as something that is just waiting on adoption. Perhaps "Towards the Future of Parallel Computing"...