[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.