Docker is transitioning to the Moby Project
A new upstream project to break up Docker into independent components by shykes · Pull Request #32691 · moby/moby

          On 04/22/2017 12:57 PM, Solomon Hykes wrote:
 On Saturday, April 22, 2017, Scott McCarty ***@***.***>
 wrote:

 > @frekele <https://github.com/frekele> while, I really want to believe
 > this is a good move for the community, there is one critical component
 > missing. In the drawings referenced, there is no mention of the docker
 > command, docker daemon, and Dockerfile. There is no mention of
 whether they
 > stay in the Moby project/repo or are separated out into another
 repository.
 >
 This is clearly explained in the proposed new README. Take the time to
 read
 the contents of this PR, it says that:


 - The docker daemon will be split into independent components, so will be
 replaced by multiple daemons.

 - The docker CLI and sdk will remain open-source in the docker
 organization.
This will essentially make Docker CE, the only place where all of these
components come together and AFAIK, per the EULA, this is not Open
Source. So, this is effectively a dissolution of the original docker
project.

 - The Dockerfile support is tied into the daemon, so will remain in the
 moby repo until it's spun out into an independent component. At that point
 we will have to work out together if Dockerfile and its syntax should be
 built-in, or more of an optional frontend, with the possibility for anyone
 to create their own custom build frontend. For example @ibuildthecloud has
 made a compelling argument for the latter. You're welcome to join that
 design discussion of course.
I am excited to join the discussion.

 > Either way, if they remain named docker daemon, docker command, and
 > Dockerfile, it prevents any other company from extracting any value from
 > their contributions to these projects because only Docker Inc.
 retains the
 > rights to use the docker name.
 >
 > As somebody who has targeted and refined my career over the last 4 years
 > based on Docker/Containers, I can no longer extract value from that
 > participation directly without becoming a Docker EE reseller of some
 kind.
 > I can't build a company doing consulting on the docker daemon,
 Dockerfiles
 > because that would be a breach Docker Inc's usage policy.
 >
 > In fact, nobody can build anything downstream from Moby that
 includes the
 > docker daemon, command or Dockerfile and talk about it in any sane
 way. The
 > docker daemon absolutely needs renamed or Docker Inc is the only company
 > that can extract value.
 >
 > Open source projects like Linux, Apache, KDE, etcd, etc allow ANYBODY to
 > extract downstream value. If the goal is openness, then I ask Docker
 Inc.
 > to rename the docker daemon to mobyd, the command to moby, and the
 > Dockerfile to Mobyfile. Then, anybody can build downstream value.
 >


 > I personally, am very upset. (opinions here my own, not those of my
 > employer Red Hat).
 >

 It's good to clarify that you are upset personally as an open-source
 contributor, not as the marketing manager for the Red Hat containers
 commercial offering. That would have been a shame since I remember
 spending
 several months explaining the upcoming change to Red Hat leadership,
 incorporating their feedback, and making sure they understood the change
 and agreed with it - after all, they did the same thing with Fedora
 back in
 the day. Then your employer agreed to publically support the change since
 it was clearly better for the community. If hypothetically you were
 speaking as a marketing manager at Red Hat, then that would lower my
 esteem
 for your employer quite a bit: breaking a commitment to me and not even
 having the courage to make it their official position - instead
 sending you
 to "be concerned". Fortunately like you said, you are *not* speaking as a
 marketing manager at Red Hat, so it's all good. You are of course entitled
 to be concerned, I hope my answer above helps address your concerns as an
 individual open-source contributor. I believe that Moby will make it
 easier, not harder, to extract value from your open-source contributions.
Since, you were involved in those discussions, you are already aware
that I was not involved in any of those conversations, nor any decisions
contributing to this move to Moby. You are correct, as a Technical
Marketing Manager, I have been evangelizing the docker project and
technology for the last 3 years of my life. I have written countless
blog entries, done countless demos, taught countless classes/tutorials,
and literally convinced hundreds if not thousands of individuals to use
or think about using docker containers. I contributed to the CIS
Bechmark work, answered hundreds if not thousands of technical questions
in the community, and have spoken all over the world about docker.

So, with all of that said, forgive me if I have a personal reaction to
the change in the project. I hope your above comment is your personal
opinion, because if your condescending attitude was the official
position of Docker Inc. it would lower my esteem for that organization
as well. And, at the end of of all of this, no matter what happens, I
don't get to cash out, my stake is merely emotional...
…
      