• EnsignWashout@startrek.website
      1·
      6 hours ago

      Docker desktop is not. (open source)

      Which can be a pretty big deal.

      This works out to: The product is unencumbered, but the only reliable installer is encumbered as fuck.

      That’s a “no thanks”, from me.

      I don’t need the sword of “Docker fucking with my colleague’s ability to collaborate” hanging over each of my projects.

      I’m not mad at folks using Docker for backwards compatibility. I just don’t need to make the problem worse.

    • unitedwithme@lemmy.today
      71·
      18 hours ago

      So, the Docker engine is free, just not the software under certain stipulations. See I don’t like that. A weird caveat for using it.

        • Kangae_Hishiryo@scribe.disroot.org
          2·
          12 hours ago

          This NOTICE in both repos is weird asf:

          Docker Copyright 2012-2017 Docker, Inc.

          This product includes software developed at Docker, Inc. (https://www.docker.com/).

          This product contains software (https://github.com/creack/pty) developed by Keith Rarick, licensed under the MIT License.

          The following is courtesy of our legal counsel:

          Use and transfer of Docker may be subject to certain restrictions by the United States and other governments. It is your responsibility to ensure that your use and/or transfer does not violate applicable laws.

          For more information, please see https://www.bis.doc.gov/

          See also https://www.apache.org/dev/crypto.html and/or seek legal counsel.

          Also, they do limit some kind of uses if you don’t pay.

          • SlurpingPus@lemmy.world
            1·
            1 hour ago

            Use and transfer of Docker may be subject to certain restrictions by the United States and other governments. It is your responsibility to ensure that your use and/or transfer does not violate applicable laws.

            That’s true of all software. It may be subject to restrictions by governments. But in this case, it seems to refer to the fact that the US restricted export of cryptographic software, and seemingly continues to restrict. See also Bernstein v. United States.

          • Lena@gregtech.eu
            3·
            12 hours ago

            Also, they do limit some kind of uses if you don’t pay.

            You mean Docker Desktop?

            Also iirc all software developed in the USA is subject to those restrictions.

            • Kangae_Hishiryo@scribe.disroot.org
              1·
              12 hours ago

              …iirc all software developed in the USA is subject to those restrictions.

              Oh, well, I didn’t knew about that, yeah.

              You mean Docker Desktop?

              And, in part yes, but these restrictions also apply to docker-cli and moby, although to a lesser extent

              • Lena@gregtech.eu
                11·
                9 hours ago

                And, in part yes, but these restrictions also apply to docker-cli and moby, although to a lesser extent

                What restrictions? The ones on all US software or something else?

                  • Lena@gregtech.eu
                    11·
                    8 hours ago

                    The Apache License 2.0 does allow commercial use, and basically any other use. Can you say specifically where those restrictions are stated?