5 ms·

I have replied at the root but I think you are misunderstanding my complaints. I completely agree that Docker doesn't own me anything. By the same token, I can

I have replied at the root but I think you are misunderstanding my complaints. I completely agree that Docker doesn't own me anything. By the same token, I can express my frustration by them vaguely announcing that many Livebook and Elixir deployment pipelines may be broken _within a month_. Also, it took several years of _free work_ for Elixir to become profitable (and even then, we invest most of the profits right back into the community). And I consider well within my rights to recognize that their open source grant wouldn't have helped me back then and I doubt it will help others now. Overall, it is not about the cost. It is just that I would rather take my business elsewhere (paid or free). Here is a quick exercise: imagine I announce the next Elixir versions will require at least $300/year to use. I bet everyone would be fine with it. The cost of running a business and all that, right?

nickjj 4y ago
> Here is a quick exercise: imagine I announce the next Elixir versions will require at least $300/year to use. I bet everyone would be fine with it. The cost of running a business and all that, right? That's not a fair analogy. Docker is still free to use to build your own things today. You can run containers on your servers and pay $0. You can host images on your own registry and Docker makes $0 off that, you can still provide free value to the community by allowing the community to pull from your registry at no cost. An accurate analogy would be more like Elixir officially hosting all open source Elixir apps for free for ~10 years and now 10 years later you want to start charging a relatively small amount of money to continue hosting things for the community. That doesn't seem unreasonable to me and that's what Docker is doing here.
- josevalim 4y ago
  The analogy worked fine under the last sentence of your previous comment - now removed - which said something like "assume nothing is given, assume nothing is owned". Anyway, we can work with your example. Your example is missing the context that Docker images are not always used as an app, but also as a building block. So let's change the exercise slightly: assume Dashbit owns Hex.pm and posting any package to Hex.pm now requires $300/year or packages will be removed within a month. As an OSS maintainer, if you do not pay, you will break the deployment of all users of your package. So... would everyone still be fine with it? The cost of running a business and all that? EDIT: Hex.pm supports custom registries which anyone can self-host. Including built-in tools to help you with that. You can apply this exercise to any open source community with a centralized-by-default package manager with custom registries (which, afaik, are most of them).

nickjj 4y ago

> Here is a quick exercise: imagine I announce the next Elixir versions will require at least $300/year to use. I bet everyone would be fine with it. The cost of running a business and all that, right? That's not a fair analogy. Docker is still free to use to build your own things today. You can run containers on your servers and pay $0. You can host images on your own registry and Docker makes $0 off that, you can still provide free value to the community by allowing the community to pull from your registry at no cost. An accurate analogy would be more like Elixir officially hosting all open source Elixir apps for free for ~10 years and now 10 years later you want to start charging a relatively small amount of money to continue hosting things for the community. That doesn't seem unreasonable to me and that's what Docker is doing here.

josevalim 4y ago
The analogy worked fine under the last sentence of your previous comment - now removed - which said something like "assume nothing is given, assume nothing is owned". Anyway, we can work with your example. Your example is missing the context that Docker images are not always used as an app, but also as a building block. So let's change the exercise slightly: assume Dashbit owns Hex.pm and posting any package to Hex.pm now requires $300/year or packages will be removed within a month. As an OSS maintainer, if you do not pay, you will break the deployment of all users of your package. So... would everyone still be fine with it? The cost of running a business and all that? EDIT: Hex.pm supports custom registries which anyone can self-host. Including built-in tools to help you with that. You can apply this exercise to any open source community with a centralized-by-default package manager with custom registries (which, afaik, are most of them).