You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
Can the image have a license? I feel like this is pretty problematic when most images are composed of multiple pieces of various software with different licenses.
I would guess the layer could have a license. These labels are not required. I would say think of these more as applications then container images. I as a third party ACME could add a flag saying that this software requires an ACME License to run
I think that most if not all images will end up with "MULTIPLE" as the license. In any case we should clarify that the 'License' label refers to the content not the image as an aggregate work - which I think would not constitute enough of creative work to even be protected.
When this came up last year I agreed with @riekrh. Recently though I've been thinking that the absence of any standard kind of license metadata for Docker images is suboptimal. Maybe this should be reconsidered?
Is there perhaps a better way to define a standard for referencing a document on the licenses for the content included in the image, rather than a single metadata field trying to summarize all of them?
Activity
rhatdan commentedon Apr 24, 2015
I would guess the layer could have a license. These labels are not required. I would say think of these more as applications then container images. I as a third party ACME could add a flag saying that this software requires an ACME License to run
llunved commentedon Jun 15, 2015
I think that most if not all images will end up with "MULTIPLE" as the license. In any case we should clarify that the 'License' label refers to the content not the image as an aggregate work - which I think would not constitute enough of creative work to even be protected.
rhatdan commentedon Jun 15, 2015
Send me a patch with the wording you would like, or to pull the term. I am not wedded to it one way or another.
rhatdan commentedon Jun 17, 2015
Ok lets remove it.
rhatdan commentedon Jun 17, 2015
Removed
richardfontana commentedon Mar 25, 2016
When this came up last year I agreed with @riekrh. Recently though I've been thinking that the absence of any standard kind of license metadata for Docker images is suboptimal. Maybe this should be reconsidered?
llunved commentedon Mar 28, 2016
Is there perhaps a better way to define a standard for referencing a document on the licenses for the content included in the image, rather than a single metadata field trying to summarize all of them?