While DCO is excellent for tracking provenance, we opted for a CLA primarily to address explicit patent grants and sublicensing rights—areas where a standard DCO often lacks the comprehensive legal coverage that a formal agreement provides.

It’s a common and sustainable practice in the industry to keep the core code open-source while developing enterprise features. Without a solid CLA in place, a project faces massive legal hurdles later on—whether that’s for future commercialization or even the eventual donation of the project to an open-source foundation like the CNCF or Apache Foundation. We're just trying to ensure long-term legal clarity for everyone involved.

My focus on the CLA is about building a solid foundation for RustFS so it doesn't face the licensing "re-branding" drama we've seen with other storage projects recently. It’s about long-term stability for the community, not just a marketing ploy.

It’s been amazing to watch Milvus grow from its roots in China to gaining global trust and major VC backing. You've really nailed the commercialization, open-source governance, and international credibility aspects.

Regarding RustFS, I think that—much like Milvus in the early days—it just needs time to earn global trust. With storage and databases, trust is built over years; users are naturally hesitant to do large-scale replacements without that long track record.

Haha, maybe Milvus should just acquire RustFS? That would certainly make us feel a lot safer using it!

New standards and features are emerging constantly—such as S3 over RDMA, S3 Append, cold storage tiers, and S3 vector buckets.

In at most two or three years, relying on an unmaintained version of MinIO will likely become a liability that drags down your project as your production environment evolves. Finding an actively maintained open-source alternative is a must.

1. RustFS and SeaweedFS are the fastest in the object storage field.

2. The installation for Garage and SeaweedFS is more complex compared to RustFS.

3. The RustFS console is the most convenient and user-friendly.

4. Ceph is too difficult to use; I wouldn't dare deploy it without a deep understanding of the source code.

Although many people criticize RustFS, suggesting its CLA might be "bait," I don't think such a requirement is excessive for open source software, as it helps mitigate their own legal risks.

Furthermore, Milvus gave RustFS a very high official evaluation. Based on technical benchmarks and other aspects, I believe RustFS will ultimately win.

https://milvus.io/blog/evaluating-rustfs-as-a-viable-s3-comp...

It's promising, but definitely check the roadmap before deploying at scale.

I’ve evaluated both RustFS and Garage, and here’s the breakdown:

Release Cadence: Garage feels a bit slower, while RustFS is shipping updates almost weekly.

Licensing: Garage is on AGPLv3, but RustFS uses the Apache license (which is huge for enterprise adoption).

Stability: Garage currently has the edge in distributed environments.

With MinIO effectively bowing out of the OSS race, my money is on RustFS to take the lead.