EDIT: For some context, I recently gave podman another go. I have a few services on my homelab server set up in docker containers, so I tried migrating to podman.

After the second major bug (open issue on github) I encountered looked like it would require completely dropping using compose files to work around, I gave up and went back to docker.

I like the idea of podman, but it’s just not stable. I’ll try again in a year or so.

As a bonus, docker’s CLI is significantly nicer.

  • unitedwithme@lemmy.today
    71·
    2 days ago

    So, the Docker engine is free, just not the software under certain stipulations. See I don’t like that. A weird caveat for using it.

      • Kangae_Hishiryo@scribe.disroot.org
        2·
        1 day ago

        This NOTICE in both repos is weird asf:

        Docker Copyright 2012-2017 Docker, Inc.

        This product includes software developed at Docker, Inc. (https://www.docker.com/).

        This product contains software (https://github.com/creack/pty) developed by Keith Rarick, licensed under the MIT License.

        The following is courtesy of our legal counsel:

        Use and transfer of Docker may be subject to certain restrictions by the United States and other governments. It is your responsibility to ensure that your use and/or transfer does not violate applicable laws.

        For more information, please see https://www.bis.doc.gov/

        See also https://www.apache.org/dev/crypto.html and/or seek legal counsel.

        Also, they do limit some kind of uses if you don’t pay.

        • [object Object]@lemmy.world
          2·
          22 hours ago

          Use and transfer of Docker may be subject to certain restrictions by the United States and other governments. It is your responsibility to ensure that your use and/or transfer does not violate applicable laws.

          That’s true of all software. It may be subject to restrictions by governments. But in this case, it seems to refer to the fact that the US restricted export of cryptographic software, and seemingly continues to restrict. See also Bernstein v. United States.

        • Lena@gregtech.eu
          3·
          1 day ago

          Also, they do limit some kind of uses if you don’t pay.

          You mean Docker Desktop?

          Also iirc all software developed in the USA is subject to those restrictions.

          • Kangae_Hishiryo@scribe.disroot.org
            1·
            1 day ago

            …iirc all software developed in the USA is subject to those restrictions.

            Oh, well, I didn’t knew about that, yeah.

            You mean Docker Desktop?

            And, in part yes, but these restrictions also apply to docker-cli and moby, although to a lesser extent

            • Lena@gregtech.eu
              11·
              1 day ago

              And, in part yes, but these restrictions also apply to docker-cli and moby, although to a lesser extent

              What restrictions? The ones on all US software or something else?

              • [object Object]@lemmy.world
                1·
                7 hours ago

                As is evident just from the link at the bottom of the notice, it’s about US export controls on cryptographic software, which is a source of contention since the nineties.

                • Lena@gregtech.eu
                  21·
                  1 day ago

                  The Apache License 2.0 does allow commercial use, and basically any other use. Can you say specifically where those restrictions are stated?