[xenoscopic]

I'd point out that most of the foundational components of Docker's technology stack are FOSS (e.g. [0] [1]). Mutagen also has (and had, prior to acquisition) closed-source components and components licensed under non-OSI licenses (e.g. SSPL), so evaluate my response in that context (and also please note that these are my responses, and not representative of Docker's opinions/positions). Also, as mentioned in the acquisition FAQ [2], we don't have any plans to change the open-source licensing structure, and we're still open to contributions.

It's a delicate balance to strike, and almost more delicate to discuss. At the end of the day, an open source business is still a business, and you have to make money to eat, shelter, and continue writing code. I can certainly appreciate that there are different approaches to balancing that with open-source (e.g. consulting rather than close-sourcing), but so long as you're setting natural (non-contrived) boundaries between open-source and proprietary, then I don't think you're doing anything wrong. In fact, several companies were embedding and making money from Mutagen before I was, but that never really bothered me — that was the freedom I was affording them as users.

I have nothing but the utmost respect for user freedom and I've always strived to offer that with Mutagen (e.g. allowing people to disable components that might not fit the OSI definition of FOSS). I also have nothing but the utmost respect for the authors of open-source software; Mutagen stands on the shoulders of many different dependencies and I've always strived to ensure that we're acknowledging those in a manner that is compliant with their licensing requirements (or going above and beyond that).

In the end, it's a tough but fair question. I don't think my views have changed and I don't think there's any real incompatibility. It's a balance I'll necessarily continue to assess on a daily basis, both at Docker and in any other FOSS I write.

[0] https://github.com/docker

[1] https://github.com/moby

[2] https://www.docker.com/blog/mutagen-acquisition/#mutagen-faq

[sneak]

> Also, as mentioned in the acquisition FAQ [2], we don't have any plans to change the open-source licensing structure, and we're still open to contributions.

Well, assuming you require contributors to sign a CLA, that is requiring anyone who donates software to your organization to allow you to release it in nonfree products (something Docker requires today, given that they ship proprietary software).

I'm personally really tired of this sort of free software cosplay, where companies pretend to respect user freedoms but are actually just pretending to embrace free software ideology with a license here or there but don't actually support user freedoms (as evidenced by their continued use of nonfree licenses and CLAs to enable dual licensing).

> but so long as you're setting natural (non-contrived) boundaries between open-source and proprietary, then I don't think you're doing anything wrong

I do. You can't be said to respect user freedoms if you, you know, don't respect user freedoms on a regular basis by promoting proprietary software that users can't easily modify and redistribute freely. That's actively user-hostile, just like Docker Inc has been with Docker Desktop and other products.