[InsomniacL]

> Can't believe the sense of entitlement in this thread.

I don't use Docker so I genuinely don't know this...

Is the Docker Library built on the back of volunteers which is then used to sell paid subscriptions?

Does this commercial company expect volunteers to give them images for free which give their paid subscriptions value?

[Zandikar]

> Does this commercial company expect volunteers to give them images for free which give their paid subscriptions value?

Yes, to an extent, because it costs money to store and serve data, no matter what kind of data it is or it's associated IP rights/licensing/ownership. Regardless, this isn't requiring people to buy a subscription or otherwise charging anyone to access the data. It's not even preventing unauthenticated users from accessing the data. It's reducing the rate at which that data can be ingested without ID/Auth to reduce the operational expense of making that data freely (as in money) and publicly available. Given the explosion in traffic (demand) and the ability to make those demands thanks to automation and AI relative to the operational expense of supplying it, rate limiting access to free and public data egress is not in and of itself unreasonable. Especially if those that are responsible for that increased OpEx aren't respecting fair use (legally or conceptually) and even potentially abusing the IP rights/licensing of "images [given] for free" to the "Library built on the back of volunteers".

To what extent that's happening, how relevant it is to docker, and how effective/reasonable Docker's response to it are all perfectly reasonable discussions to have. The entitlement is referring to those that explicitly or implicitly expect or demand such a service should be provided for free.

Note: you mentioned you don't use docker. a single docker pull can easily be 100's of MB's (official psql image is ~150MB for example) or even in some cases over a GB worth of network transfer depending on the image. Additionally, there is no restriction by docker/dockerhub that prevents or discourages people from linking to source code or alternative hosts of the data. Furthermore you don't have to do a pull everytime you wish to use an image, and caching/redistributing them within your LAN/Cluster is easy. Should also be mentioned Docker Hub is more than just a publicly accessible storage endpoint for a specific kind of data, and their subscription services provide more that just hosting/serving that data.

[goodpoint]

> Is the Docker Library built on the back of volunteers which is then used to sell paid subscriptions?

Yes.

> Does this commercial company expect volunteers to give them images for free which give their paid subscriptions value?

Yes.

[Aurornis]

> Does this commercial company expect volunteers to give them images for free which give their paid subscriptions value?

If you're only looking at Docker Hub as a host of public images, you're only seeing the tip of the iceberg.

Docker Hub subscriptions are primarily for hosting private images, which you can't see from the outside.

IMO, hosting public images with 10 pulls per hour is plenty generous, given how much bandwidth it uses.

[wiether]

It's like GitHub limiting the number of checkout you can do each hour on public repos. Unless you pay a sub to get rid of the limit.

So, yeah, they kind of taking advantage of people putting their work on DH to try&sell subs.

But nobody have to put their images on DH. And to be honest, I don't think the discoverability factor is as important on DH that it is on GitHub.

So if people want to pay for they own registry to make it available for free for everyone, it's less an issue than hosting your repo on your own GitLab/Gitea instance.