[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [libreplanet-discuss] freedom problems in docker

From: Rudolf
Subject: Re: [libreplanet-discuss] freedom problems in docker
Date: Sun, 24 Apr 2016 16:36:04 +0000

Hi Ali,

I would suggest that you create project page on the Libreplanet wiki; if there's a chapter in your area then create the project page underneath your chapter's wiki page.

This would allow a focused discussion about the alternative docker repository on the wiki, and would give publicity to your idea. Not everyone is on the mailing list and it can harder to gather volunteers for a project when there's no wiki page for it.

I would be interested in contributing to a wiki page and it would make it easier for me to share the project of an alternative docker registry at work.


On Sun, Apr 24, 2016 at 12:11 PM Ali Abdul Ghani <> wrote:
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 <>:
> 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:
> They do provide some instructions on using alternative repositories:
> Docker Inc. pushes their own trusted registry which has to be paid for with
> their instructions here:
> But they do state that their trusted registry and Docker Hub are both built
> on the Apache 2.0-licensed "distribution" code base:
> 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 <> wrote:
>>   > this is the repository
>>   >
>>   > 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
>> 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 (,
>> Internet Hall-of-Famer (
>> Skype: No way! See

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.

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]