undefined | Better HN

0 pointsmardifoufs2y ago0 comments

What? Docker is still completely open source apart from the desktop GUI. The engine and (I'm pretty sure) all components are completely free and if anything, they have pushed for the standardization of the container runtime. Buildkit is free, compose is free, no feature is paywalled apart from Mirantis-centric stuff (not part of docker inc)

You can absolutely bet that they would get dropped like a rock if they moved to changing the engine's license. Even the docker desktop code wasn't ever open to begin with anyways.

0 comments

scrum-treats2y ago

Didn't Docker actually try it earlier this year, e.g., https://blog.alexellis.io/docker-is-deleting-open-source-ima...?

mardifoufsOP2y ago

That's just hosting though iirc. Docker hub is very important, but it's not really part of Docker the software. As in, you could deploy your own container registry with 0 licensing issues. They just didn't want to pay the bandwidth costs anymore, though I think they walked back on that for open source images.

scrum-treats2y ago

Got it. Thanks for the clarity.

flanked-evergl2y ago

Not sure what "it" refers to here, but what Docker did is in no way similar to what HashiCorp did.

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse

0 pointsmardifoufs2y ago0 comments

You can absolutely bet that they would get dropped like a rock if they moved to changing the engine's license. Even the docker desktop code wasn't ever open to begin with anyways.

0 comments

scrum-treats2y ago

Didn't Docker actually try it earlier this year, e.g., https://blog.alexellis.io/docker-is-deleting-open-source-ima...?

mardifoufsOP2y ago

scrum-treats2y ago

Got it. Thanks for the clarity.

flanked-evergl2y ago

Not sure what "it" refers to here, but what Docker did is in no way similar to what HashiCorp did.

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse