3 ms·

Congratulations... So what's the $15m going to be used for? Given that Docker is licensed under Apache 2.0 which allows the venture backed Docker Corp. to cre

by yapcguy 13y ago

Congratulations... So what's the $15m going to be used for? Given that Docker is licensed under Apache 2.0 which allows the venture backed Docker Corp. to create a closed proprietary version of the software... will outside contributors be compensated? Is this the reason why Docker isn't GPL?

jamtur01 13y ago
The blog post on our site explains what comes next: http://blog.docker.io/2014/01/docker-closes-15-m-series-b-funding/ http://blog.docker.io/2014/01/docker-closes-15-m-series-b-fu... Quoting from that: "While Docker itself will always remain free and open source, we are busy gearing up for the launch of both hosted services around Docker and commercial support for Docker."
shykes 13y ago
> Is this the reason why Docker isn't GPL? No :) If we released a closed-source version we would get forked in a instant. It would be an extremely stupid thing for us to do. We've stated repeatedly that Docker inc. will make money by 1) offering support and professional services to enterprise customers, primarily through channel partners like Red Hat and others; and 2) offering hosted managed services for things like image hosting, orchestration, container tracking etc. Since we have been operating a PaaS at large scale for several years now, we know how to sell hosted services and it makes sense for us to focus on that. Ben (our CEO) gives more details in this blog post: http://blog.docker.io/2014/01/docker-closes-15-m-series-b-funding/ http://blog.docker.io/2014/01/docker-closes-15-m-series-b-fu...
golubbe 13y ago
This is Ben, the CEO of Docker, and Solomon's partner in crime. Being based on Apache 2.0 (and adopting an open design process, having a large number of non-Docker Inc. maintainers, having over 300 contributors) should be read as a strong signal that we will not go proprietary or even "open core." Anyone can use and modify Docker under Apache 2.0 without fear of "copyleft" or similar restrictions, which creates a strong disincentive for us to abuse our position by going proprietary. Our business plans, as stated in the blog, are around commercial support and hosted services. (In addition, being Apache vs. GPL makes it much easier for enterprises to adopt us, and much easier to get integrated into projects like OpenStack.)
darkarmani 13y ago
> Is this the reason why Docker isn't GPL? You have it backwards. If it was GPL, that would prevent other people from creating closed proprietary versions of their software. GPL or AGPL would prevent competition. Since they are the copyright owner they get unrestricted use to the software even if the rest of us had to follow the GPL.

by yapcguy 13y ago

jamtur01 13y ago

The blog post on our site explains what comes next: http://blog.docker.io/2014/01/docker-closes-15-m-series-b-funding/ http://blog.docker.io/2014/01/docker-closes-15-m-series-b-fu... Quoting from that: "While Docker itself will always remain free and open source, we are busy gearing up for the launch of both hosted services around Docker and commercial support for Docker."

shykes 13y ago

> Is this the reason why Docker isn't GPL? No :) If we released a closed-source version we would get forked in a instant. It would be an extremely stupid thing for us to do. We've stated repeatedly that Docker inc. will make money by 1) offering support and professional services to enterprise customers, primarily through channel partners like Red Hat and others; and 2) offering hosted managed services for things like image hosting, orchestration, container tracking etc. Since we have been operating a PaaS at large scale for several years now, we know how to sell hosted services and it makes sense for us to focus on that. Ben (our CEO) gives more details in this blog post: http://blog.docker.io/2014/01/docker-closes-15-m-series-b-funding/ http://blog.docker.io/2014/01/docker-closes-15-m-series-b-fu...

golubbe 13y ago

This is Ben, the CEO of Docker, and Solomon's partner in crime. Being based on Apache 2.0 (and adopting an open design process, having a large number of non-Docker Inc. maintainers, having over 300 contributors) should be read as a strong signal that we will not go proprietary or even "open core." Anyone can use and modify Docker under Apache 2.0 without fear of "copyleft" or similar restrictions, which creates a strong disincentive for us to abuse our position by going proprietary. Our business plans, as stated in the blog, are around commercial support and hosted services. (In addition, being Apache vs. GPL makes it much easier for enterprises to adopt us, and much easier to get integrated into projects like OpenStack.)

darkarmani 13y ago

> Is this the reason why Docker isn't GPL? You have it backwards. If it was GPL, that would prevent other people from creating closed proprietary versions of their software. GPL or AGPL would prevent competition. Since they are the copyright owner they get unrestricted use to the software even if the rest of us had to follow the GPL.