True, but it's been a goal to open source Quay from before Red Hat acquired CoreOS. The Quay team has always wanted to go community OSS, and it's been Red Hat's policy since acquisition to help them. There were just a whole bunch of prerequisites to iron out first.
And now users are in a much better place, because they have multiple choices of container registry, which will hopefully drive innovation.
No, the CoC violation was for making a video, in his very popular podcast channel, supporting the "right" of Somnez to attack women in tech. Since Woods was coming to Kubecon specifically to podcast it, this made several women going to Kubecon feel very unsafe.
> supporting the "right" of Somnez to attack women in tech
Clearly false, borderline slander.
Actually what Somnez did was trying to take heat away from a specific tech-women being attacked in a twitter flamewar, by instead creating heat for himself.
He did this by being generally obnoxious and impolite, and thus an obvious target to follow/tack on to instead. This part was clearly successful and the harassed woman got less heat for it.
However he told lots of tech-people to "shut up". The problem? Some of those people were women.
If he found their opinion offensive or racists, should he not have told those people off because they were women? Should he have treated them differently? Really?
Personally I don't think so. Because IMO that would be the text-book definition of actual sexism.
If I fire an arrow in the dark, and it kills a person of color, does that make it a racist act of manslaughter?
Of course not. Racism denotes the motive of the attacker, not just the nature of the victim. Both have to be present for racism to be a factor.
That may or may not apply here, but I would need to see the video. Regardless, I've seen the 'ascribed motive' attack applied practically nonstop during this whole debacle, conjuring racist motives on the basis of a person of color making an accusation of racism, and not any acts of Charles Wood himself, including the aforementioned video. If that was key evidence, no one has brought it forward.
Charles Woods was denied a pass to Kubecon on the basis of his podcasted support for attacks on women and black people in tech by Mr. Somnez. It had absolutely zero to do with MAGA hats.
Charles Woods was denied a pass for Kubecon on the basis of his podcasted support, at length, for Somnez's attacks on women in tech. It had absolutely nothing to do with MAGA hats.
Nevermind the fact that the women Somnez attacked were themselves harassing another woman in tech - even after she apologized (what her alleged offense was I'm not clear on).
These women, as can be seen from their histories, are not new to this kind of behavior, and indeed they have explicitly said that they see civility and discourse as something invented "by white men, for white men" as a means of oppression.
Somnez may have been excessive in his behavior, but he was doing it to draw fire away from an innocent individual.
Christ does exhort his followers to render unto Caesar what is Caesar’s, and Democrats believe the state acts on behalf of the populace to perform tasks that we individually could not do. So a community can clothe and house the poor better than an individual can.
Clothing and housing are artefacts of this world, not the kingdom of Christ. Ergo rendering unto Caesar what is caesar’s involves providing clothing and housing to those who do not have it, with the state as proxy and effort multiplier.
Yeah, the "render unto Caesar" episode was so much deeper than just "pay your taxes."
Also, whatever the state does, it accomplishes through the threat of violence to collect taxes. For a Christian, the ends are as important as the means.
I think they can be both - the liberal vs conservative part is merely the means by which you do so - do you vote small parts of other people's property to the task or do you donate your own property voluntarily to the task.
And lest this seem like a conservative jab - it is not intended in any such manner - I willingly admit that in those times the system worked completely different than it does now in ways that would create a great deal of consternation in both modern liberals AND conservatives.
Not to get into a huge political philosophy discussion here, but conservative people are on average some of the biggest donators to charitable groups who focus on tenets such as these. The "liberals" don't have a corner on wanting to help people, although people disagree how that help should be organised.
Why should the success or failure of VC-funded startups be a concern for open source?
If Redis Labs folds, that's sad for them and I'm sure I'll end up writing some references for people.
But it's only a concern for open source if Redis stops being maintained as a result. Which I seriously doubt would happen; Salvatore built Redis before Redis Labs existed, and I'm sure would land a job at one of those "established enterprises" if they fold.
Maybe we should be more focused on how the VC-funded startup model is actually reinforcing the power of established players, instead of messing around with licenses?
For the same reason that the success or failure of other companies doing open source should be of concern. Company funding and structure get a lot of open source made. Industry involvement supercharged the open source community. But if it won't make money, industry won't do it. Industry will decide whether to do it based on past performances.
VC-funded startups produce a substantial amount of open source. If what we see at the tail end of this funding boom is a bunch of startups doing open source fail structurally, rather than merely by falling short of numbers, VCs will notice. There will be less funding for startups on any kind of open source model. And therefore less open source.
When we look at projects and define success only in terms of project continuity, and not individual outcomes, we dodge the question of why folks should get involved in the first place. Some baseline motivation will always be there from the bottom, from hobbyists, activists, and the obsessed, and the top, where enterprises use open source for cost reduction and cost sharing. Whether anyone shows up in the middle has a huge effect on what open source achieves, as a movement. And to what extent open source represents a viable opportunity to proprietary products and services.
If you read the shutdown blog post for RethinkDB, licensing was not among their problems. Instead, they were market positioning, reputation, and developing products suitable for their market in a timely fashion. In other words, business execution.
Believe it or don't, no license, no matter how clever, will allow you to be financially successful if you blow the business execution.
Let's turn this on its head: what was the business plan that RedisLabs re-invented itself under? Was it a good business plan? Is is vulnerability to Amazon/MS that made it fail, or was the plan flawed from the start?
Josh Berkus, member of the OSI license review committee here.
License Zero was rejected because it's not open source. It is, in fact, a business model for a specific startup (and, I'd argue, not for the writers of the code either).
Kyle had some other interesting ideas for licensing that could have been approved as open source, but was uninterested in pursuing them if they didn't support License Zero the business.
The last draft of License Zero Reciprocal posted to license-review works perfectly well on its own, without any dual licensing, and without any relationship to the business I formed. Its language wasn't any more coupled to a particular business model, or any business model at all, than AGPL's. If someone told you otherwise, they told you wrong.
I released the source code for licensezero.com itself under a successor to L0-R, without offering to sell any private licenses whatsoever. Anyone could use the terms similarly.
"License Zero was rejected because it's not open source" is tautological. And, alas, that's mostly in line with my experience of the license-review process. Some great folks offered back-and-forth, and were willing to explore. But that was largely drowned out by bare conclusions, and the drama that flared up whenever I tried to probe them.
And now users are in a much better place, because they have multiple choices of container registry, which will hopefully drive innovation.