Hot answers tagged

17

Linux (the Kernel) uses the GPL 2.0 with an extra statement: NOTE! This copyright does not cover user programs that use kernel services by normal system calls - this is merely considered normal use of the kernel, and does not fall under the heading of "derived work". Also note that the GPL below is copyrighted by the Free Software Foundation, ...


15

Docker Community Editions are products from Docker built on- and assembled from open source components. Some Docker Community Editions are based solely on open source projects (like Docker for Debian, Ubuntu, Fedora and other open Linux distributions). Some Docker Community Editions incorporate components that are not open source. We try to let the openness ...


8

A container image (a file system that may include various copyrighted works) and the scripts to build these images (like a Dockerfile) are separate works. In general, the license of the included software is completely unrelated to the license of the build scripts. If you build upon a build script, you are bound by the license of that build script (but this ...


5

You are re-distributing an entire Debian build with your software (licence unspecified) aggregated inside it. If I run a cron job to update the vm from time to time am I correct that I would have to provide the source code of the updated gpl programs as well ? You are. We have a question on re-distributing unmodified GPLv2 binaries (they are unmodified ...


5

Generally, it's handled by the distro's package management utility. For example, if I examine the contents of postgresql-libs on my desktop (Fedora 28), I find that: [me@risby personal]$ rpm -ql postgresql-libs [...] /usr/lib64/libpq.so.5 /usr/lib64/libpq.so.5.10 /usr/lib64/pgsql /usr/share/doc/postgresql-libs /usr/share/doc/postgresql-libs/COPYRIGHT [...] ...


5

As far as I can tell, the images are mostly under the Apache licence. One is LGPL, and two of them are under the MIT licence I would not make a confusion between the license of the Dockerfile and the license of the resulting images/image layers. While the Dockerfile can use any license, the resulting image license will be likely more complex and based on ...


5

Docker is built with Moby, but you don't need Moby to install the built version. It is still open source, and still free. In the terms and conditions you linked to, definitions 1.5 and 1.6: 1.5 “Licensed Software” means the Docker software identified on an Order Form (other than Open Source Software) and licensed to Customer pursuant to the terms of ...


4

Docker container licensing is an utter mess. If you have a choice, the best move is not to play. Dockerfiles are simple: they are just an installation script. If you write the Dockerfile by yourself you are the sole copyright holder and can license it however you like, regardless of the licenses of the software referenced by the Dockerfile. Container ...


4

Speaking as someone who doesn't like docker (or containerisation in general) and thinks it gets wildly overused in places it doesn't belong, I also have to say it's very impressive. chroot jails give you filespace separation, but not network namespace, PID space, or any of the other separations that full virtualisation brings. Full virtualisation gives you ...


4

For example if I sell a service as a docker image through AWS (Amazon Web Services), would this be considered distribution from the GPLs viewpoint ? I would assume in this case that you have assembled custom images available for distribution. My test to determine when redistribution happens is when you pass the control baton. I guess that when someone buys ...


3

In all cases you need to comply with all the licenses of the third-party code included in the Docker images. And you need to comply with the L/GPL for the L/GPL-licensed code in particular, and this for all the layers of the Docker image you redistribute (which will typically include the base image and layers and all the base OS packages) and anything ...


3

Am I allowed to do that? I'm concerned over the openjdk:8-jdk Docker container which includes a Debian GNU/Linux 9 image which uses a GPL license. Yes you are allowed to do that alright. Assuming you are redistributing the Docker image(s) you are also responsible to comply with the licensing conditions of every FOSS package included in the images (including ...


3

Okay, found it! https://www.docker.com/docker-terms-service 6.4 The Service allows you to specify or upload the terms under which other users of the Service will be licensed to use your User Content. If you do not specify or upload such license terms with respect to any User Content, you hereby grant to any other users of the Service, a non-exclusive ...


3

Yes, it is entirely okay to distribute only binaries of Docker (or any other project licensed under the Apache License version 2). The Apache license version 2 has the following text regarding distribution: 4. Redistribution. You may reproduce and distribute copies of the Work or Derivative Works thereof in any medium, with or without modifications, and ...


3

Am I right in that I need to respect the Apache 2.0 license in my derived project when the only part I've modified is configuration files? (if not, yay!) Unless explicitly stated elsewhere, these configuration files are indeed covered under the Apache-2.0 license. However, these licenses are compatible so they can be included. The Free Software Foundation ...


3

In your scenario, the AGPL is unlikely to have substantial effect. (1) The AGPLv3 is identical to the GPLv3 except for a clause about remote network interaction. (2) Container images are usually an aggregate of different softwares. It is more useful to analyse the licensing those softwares themselves rather than as the combined image. The AGPL is basically ...


2

As a docker-compose.yml file is a set of instructions for installing container images, but does not contain the software binaries itself, you have no specific license constraints around how you distribute that docker-compose.yml file (assuming you wrote it from scratch). Now, it is possible that your client would not be compliant with the MySQL Community ...


2

Both projects have a licensing statement for the image (on each page you link above, scroll down to "License") and both are a bit of a cop-out. They are clear that Apache Tomcat is licensed under Apache v2 (surprise!) and that OpenJDK is licensed under GPLv2 (with the added classpath exception). They also note that: As with all Docker images, these ...


2

Docker images are simply portable archives containing the files of an operating system, including configuration files, application binaries, etc. Per the GPL FAQ, ...if the two programs are combined so that they become effectively two parts of one program, then you can't treat them as two separate programs. So the GPL has to cover the whole thing...If ...


1

I'm not a lawyer, but I believe it is OK for a MIT-licensed project to use a GPLv3-licensed database and remain MIT-licensed, if the MIT-licensed project does not modify the source code for the GPLv3-licensed database, but instead simply connects to and uses the GPLv3 database via the Apache 2.0 client References: https://www.zdnet.com/article/gplv3-myth2-...


1

My understanding is that a container image is equivalent to a Zip archive: just a collection of other files. The terms under which this collection may be used and distributed depends on the contents of this collection. TL;DR: your obligations depend on how you're going to use the image: If you only use the container image internally (e.g. by using Docker ...


1

As discussed elsewhere [1] [2], the licenses of Dockerfiles, Docker images, and of the software within those images have to be viewed separately. The most important part is what the licenses of the software in the Docker image are, not what the license of the Dockerfile is. All of Wordpress, PHP, and Apache are licensed under terms that allow commercial ...


1

There are separate issues here. The license(s) of the individual software product(s) that are part of the image The license(s) of the various scripts used to assemble the above pieces into an image The collection as such (i.e., the selection of the particular pieces used, and their arrangement) Each has a license attached to it, and any use must comply ...


1

As far as I understand you have to provide the source code of all GPL licensed programs within a docker image but not your own proprietary code within that image. This is true insofar as your code is not part of the GPL software. If you write code that is part of the same work (under copyright law) as someone else's GPL-licensed code, then the GPL requires ...


Only top voted, non community-wiki answers of a minimum length are eligible