5 ms·

Neal Gompa opened a discussion on the Fedora development list, noting the license change and the need to remove Redis from Fedora. Gompa also raised the issue

by west0n 3y ago

Neal Gompa opened a discussion on the Fedora development list, noting the license change and the need to remove Redis from Fedora. Gompa also raised the issue on openSUSE's Factory discussion list. After Docker was phased out, various distributions have adopted the compatible Podman as a replacement for Docker. It seems that a similar story is unfolding with Redis.

jacooper 3y ago
Docker was only phased out in red hat distros because they don't like it and want to push Podman. Others still have docker packaged in their repos.
- dralley 3y ago
  A bit reductionist. IIRC the main reason Docker was phased out because Red Hat wanted to push rootless, daemonless containers, which required CGroups v2, which Docker didn't want to support for the longest time. Since both versions of CGroups can't be enabled simultaneously, and no distro wanted to go without Docker (or at least Docker-like) functionality, CGroups v2 was left in permanent stasis, and so Red Hat started Podman to break the deadlock. There were a laundry list of other technical disagreements (mostly around security) but that was the primary one. And then once Red Hat distros switched over to CGroups v2, which Podman enabled them to do, it meant that Docker wouldn't really work all that well anymore until they eventually switched to CGroups v2 also (which they eventually did a few years later). So that's why it got removed from the repos, at least originally.
- tick_tock_tick 3y ago
  It's not in Debian and their wiki straight up directs you to podman with a nice big scary warning about dockers root issue. https://wiki.debian.org/Docker https://wiki.debian.org/Docker Docker is dyeing on linux podman will be the only one that remains.
  - aragilar 3y ago
    It's in Debian: https://packages.debian.org/sid/docker.io https://packages.debian.org/sid/docker.io
    - tick_tock_tick 3y ago
      huh well I'll be damn I thought this had already been resolved back to the mailing list it seems.
    - francislavoie 3y ago
      That version is so old. I just use Docker's own apt repo to not fall behind.
  - Kwpolska 3y ago
    The page suggests podman in a small info box (one that people might skip, because it feels like the Wikipedian "this article has issues" box), but it also tells you how to install real Docker. Docker has name brand recognition, and even if it wasn't in Debian's official repos, it would be installed from Docker's own repos. This wiki isn't popular enough for this to matter anyway, people are likely googling for "docker debian" and are finding instructions for real Docker. I don't feel like Docker is dying. And besides, that issue with root feels overblown in the era of single-user systems and servers as cattle.
    - k8svet 3y ago
      > that issue with root feels overblown in the era of single-user systems and servers as cattle. Uh. No.
  - noirscape 3y ago
    No? Sorry if that's a bit cynical, but Docker is only dying in the opinion of distro maintainers. By this metric, it's been dying for the past 8 years, but everyone is still talking about Docker, not podman. A related problem I've seen from other complaints made elsewhere is that podman does things just slightly different enough than Docker that it's not a true drop-in replacement. We've seen that before; where distro maintainers declared software too dangerous/prematurely dead for a while. All it resulted in was community hosted repositories for the old software. (Read: this is why avconv failed.)
- jillesvangurp 3y ago
  docker-cli is still open source (Apache 2.0) and being distributed in most flavors of Linux. Docker the company does not own all the source code. But like redis they are free to build their own non open source products around this code base.
cpach 3y ago
NB: Docker Engine is open source. (Docker Desktop is not.)
- fweimer 3y ago
  Moby is open source. The licensing situation for Docker Engine is unclear.
  - cpach 3y ago
    How so?
  - folkrav 3y ago
    https://docs.docker.com/engine/#licensing https://docs.docker.com/engine/#licensing >The Docker Engine is licensed under the Apache License, Version 2.0. See LICENSE for the full license text. The linked license file is moby's https://github.com/moby/moby/blob/master/LICENSE https://github.com/moby/moby/blob/master/LICENSE
    - fweimer 3y ago
      Docker Engine is the name for the compiled binaries, right? The licensing situation for them must be more complicated than suggested by that LICENSE file.
michaelcampbell 3y ago
> need to remove Redis from Fedora I don't get it; does the new license prohibit it from being distributed thus, or is this a philosophical "need"?
- flexagoon 3y ago
  Fedora only includes free software in it's repos: > If it is proprietary, it cannot be included in Fedora. (Binary firmware is the only exception to this) https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Forbidden_items https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Forbidden_items Proprietary software is distributed through the unofficial RPM Fusion repo

by west0n 3y ago

jacooper 3y ago

Docker was only phased out in red hat distros because they don't like it and want to push Podman. Others still have docker packaged in their repos.

dralley 3y ago
A bit reductionist. IIRC the main reason Docker was phased out because Red Hat wanted to push rootless, daemonless containers, which required CGroups v2, which Docker didn't want to support for the longest time. Since both versions of CGroups can't be enabled simultaneously, and no distro wanted to go without Docker (or at least Docker-like) functionality, CGroups v2 was left in permanent stasis, and so Red Hat started Podman to break the deadlock. There were a laundry list of other technical disagreements (mostly around security) but that was the primary one. And then once Red Hat distros switched over to CGroups v2, which Podman enabled them to do, it meant that Docker wouldn't really work all that well anymore until they eventually switched to CGroups v2 also (which they eventually did a few years later). So that's why it got removed from the repos, at least originally.
tick_tock_tick 3y ago
It's not in Debian and their wiki straight up directs you to podman with a nice big scary warning about dockers root issue. https://wiki.debian.org/Docker https://wiki.debian.org/Docker Docker is dyeing on linux podman will be the only one that remains.
- aragilar 3y ago
  It's in Debian: https://packages.debian.org/sid/docker.io https://packages.debian.org/sid/docker.io
  - tick_tock_tick 3y ago
    huh well I'll be damn I thought this had already been resolved back to the mailing list it seems.
  - francislavoie 3y ago
    That version is so old. I just use Docker's own apt repo to not fall behind.
- Kwpolska 3y ago
  The page suggests podman in a small info box (one that people might skip, because it feels like the Wikipedian "this article has issues" box), but it also tells you how to install real Docker. Docker has name brand recognition, and even if it wasn't in Debian's official repos, it would be installed from Docker's own repos. This wiki isn't popular enough for this to matter anyway, people are likely googling for "docker debian" and are finding instructions for real Docker. I don't feel like Docker is dying. And besides, that issue with root feels overblown in the era of single-user systems and servers as cattle.
  - k8svet 3y ago
    > that issue with root feels overblown in the era of single-user systems and servers as cattle. Uh. No.
- noirscape 3y ago
  No? Sorry if that's a bit cynical, but Docker is only dying in the opinion of distro maintainers. By this metric, it's been dying for the past 8 years, but everyone is still talking about Docker, not podman. A related problem I've seen from other complaints made elsewhere is that podman does things just slightly different enough than Docker that it's not a true drop-in replacement. We've seen that before; where distro maintainers declared software too dangerous/prematurely dead for a while. All it resulted in was community hosted repositories for the old software. (Read: this is why avconv failed.)
jillesvangurp 3y ago
docker-cli is still open source (Apache 2.0) and being distributed in most flavors of Linux. Docker the company does not own all the source code. But like redis they are free to build their own non open source products around this code base.

cpach 3y ago

NB: Docker Engine is open source. (Docker Desktop is not.)

fweimer 3y ago
Moby is open source. The licensing situation for Docker Engine is unclear.
- cpach 3y ago
  How so?
- folkrav 3y ago
  https://docs.docker.com/engine/#licensing https://docs.docker.com/engine/#licensing >The Docker Engine is licensed under the Apache License, Version 2.0. See LICENSE for the full license text. The linked license file is moby's https://github.com/moby/moby/blob/master/LICENSE https://github.com/moby/moby/blob/master/LICENSE
  - fweimer 3y ago
    Docker Engine is the name for the compiled binaries, right? The licensing situation for them must be more complicated than suggested by that LICENSE file.

michaelcampbell 3y ago

> need to remove Redis from Fedora I don't get it; does the new license prohibit it from being distributed thus, or is this a philosophical "need"?

flexagoon 3y ago
Fedora only includes free software in it's repos: > If it is proprietary, it cannot be included in Fedora. (Binary firmware is the only exception to this) https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Forbidden_items https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Forbidden_items Proprietary software is distributed through the unofficial RPM Fusion repo