I can make free repository and I can make fork from docker uses by default this repository but I dont have server to make it have fun and be free ali miracle
2016-04-24 6:49 جرينتش-07:00, Rudolf <omo...@gmail.com>: > When it's plainly outlined like that it seems that the freedom problems in > Docker are the same ones encountered with GNU/Linux distributions that have > proprietary packages in their package repositories and have those available > by default. > > Docker itself and additional software are licensed under the Apache 2.0 > license. The Docker Hub which stores both proprietary and free/libre > packages is not free software but the underlying repository hosting/storage > software is licensed under the Apache 2.0. > > That means we can do what F-Droid and what free/libre repos for > Ubuntu/Debian are doing and provide an alternative repository that only > hosts free/libre application containers. > > The biggest issue is that the default repository is set to Docker Hub which > contains both free and non-free application containers (which can be seen > here: https://github.com/docker/docker/blob/master/registry/config.go#L54) > They do provide some instructions on using alternative repositories: > https://docs.docker.com/engine/reference/commandline/pull/#pulling-from-a-different-registry > > Docker Inc. pushes their own trusted registry which has to be paid for with > their instructions here: > https://docs.docker.com/docker-trusted-registry/overview/ > > But they do state that their trusted registry and Docker Hub are both built > on the Apache 2.0-licensed "distribution" code base: > https://github.com/docker/distribution > > The system that does the packaging is Apache 2.0 licensed; GNU Guix is a > better approach though but that's neither here nor there. > > -rudolf > > On Sun, Apr 24, 2016 at 5:24 AM Richard Stallman <r...@gnu.org> wrote: > >> > this is the repository >> > https://hub.docker.com/ >> > When you want to run container >> >> > you must type docker run The container in you want to run >> > docker will Download the container from the repository and run it >> >> That means there are three different ethical issues: >> >> * The system that does the packaging. >> >> * What it puts into a container (aside from the program >> you want to package). Of course, if you package a nonfree >> program, the container will not be free. But suppose >> you package a free program: is the container free? >> >> * The repository where it stores containers. >> You've just said it contains nonfree containers. >> >> Also how are these related? >> >> 1. Do they distribute a program with which you can do >> packaging on your own computer? If so, is it free? >> (I expect it probably is, but I don't actually know.) >> >> Or does packaging work as SaaSS ? See >> http://gnu.org/philosophy/who-does-that-server-really-serve.html. >> >> 2. To run a container, are you compelled to run it from >> their repository? Or is their repository merely one way >> that containers can be distributed? >> >> Thus, I wonder exactly what this means: >> >> > you must type docker run The container in you want to run >> > docker will Download the container from the repository and run it >> >> When you say "must", is this the ONLY way to run a container, >> downloaded straight from the repository? That method of distributing >> them and running them is bad, because (1) if the repository contains >> nonfree containers, we don't want to link to it, and (2) when users >> run any program straight off someone else's server without the step of >> deciding which package to install, that suppresses development and >> release of other versions, and modification by the user. >> >> -- >> Dr Richard Stallman >> President, Free Software Foundation (gnu.org, fsf.org) >> Internet Hall-of-Famer (internethalloffame.org) >> Skype: No way! See stallman.org/skype.html. >> >> >> > -- Emacs is the ground. We run around and act silly on top of it, and when we die, may our remnants grace its ongoing incrementation.