Do you believe given Docker’s history of poor strategy (e.g., monetizing late requiring changes that negatively impact reputation such as docker desktop and hub), communication (e.g., the short notice changes a couple of months ago around free groups resulting in backlash) and in some cases destruction of successful businesses (see other comments in this thread) that this will result in a positive result for end users?
I hope you made bank while the ship continues to sink.
Mutagen's core users are primarily Docker users, and I honestly think they'll be much better served by the tighter integrations that we'll be able to offer now. If I didn't think that were the case, and I didn't think there were a net win (for Docker, Mutagen, and their users), then I wouldn't have joined.
Fair, I appreciate the answer. I guess I’ve just seen enough purchases where it’s just for the payday that I’m a bit cynical. Thanks again for taking the time to read and answer, wishing you the best
Thanks! I totally get it — I think a lot of time with acquisitions in general there's also a lot of good faith intentions that never manifest for whatever practical reason(s), so I can totally understand why the cynicism arises. I appreciate the positive wishes and I will do my best to convert those into positive outcomes!
> there's also a lot of good faith intentions that never manifest for whatever practical reason(s)
This is the risk blindness that exists in people that find success.
No one will perceive risk correctly. They will either over or under estimate. Those there's a huge amount of survivorship bias and those who underestimate risk and get lucky will be those who experience the most outsized success.
This isn't to say the cynical "I told you so"s are right, they're blind to the benefits. It's just that it's easy to say you can see the win-win. From the outside it's easy to see that the underlying benefit for Docker is reducing the power and input of other sources of influence in their technology, and that's a greater benefit to them than any benefit that this move could possibly provide to the users. But if anyone could make it work it's you.
You started an open source business making and publishing free software. How do you feel about going to work for a proprietary software vendor that ships lots of closed source software under restrictive licenses?
Was it a change in your own views toward user freedom (and an abandonment of free software ideology) or a practical matter?
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.
> 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.
I'm really happy with this outcome! I've been a Docker Captain for almost 3 years now, so being an employee at Docker was a very easy switch to flip (at least mentally). As I said in another comment, this really felt like the logical step given that almost all of Mutagen's users are Docker users, and I think this is the best possible outcome for the project too!
Well, that's one of those things I won't answer, but Docker is actually really great about listing nominal salary ranges for their positions on their Docker Careers page [1] - I'd encourage anyone to check out the openings there!
I hope you made bank while the ship continues to sink.