Recently Docker issued a public apology to users, especially with the open source community, for the way you announced the discontinuation of the Free Teams service.
After the protests by the announcement Docker said that he was ready to make some concessions. The company stands by its decision to remove Free Teams in one month, but forgoes removing public images of affected organizations from Docker Hub.
Docker clarified that public images will remain on Docker Hub until their maintainers decide to delete them. However, the release does not address all user concerns.
Through its Free Team offering, Docker gave Docker Hub users the ability to create teams and give members access to shared image repositories. This service is mainly used by maintainers of open source projects.
The company posted a note on its website apologizing. for miscommunication about the decision. The official statement indicates that the content of the email did not adequately express Docker's intentions. The company says that the data it referred to in its email did not relate to images.
“It was not clear what we were going to do with the images. It is important to keep images public because many other images are built on top of them,” said a Docker representative. Here is an excerpt from Docker's message to the community:
We apologize for the way we communicated and executed the removal of Docker subscriptions from the "Free Set", which caused alarm in the open source community.
For those of you catching up, we recently sent an email to Free Team Organization member accounts letting them know they will lose features unless they upgrade to one of our free or paid features.
Basically, Docker is still sticking to its plan to remove the offer de Docker Free Teams in a month. But the company says that contrary to what its email said earlier this week, it won't be removing the images.
Public images will only disappear if the maintainers of the images decide to remove them. from DockerHub. If the maintainer of an image takes no action, we will continue to distribute their images publicly. (Of course, if the maintainer migrates to the Docker-sponsored open source program or to a paid Docker subscription, we'll continue to distribute their public images as well.)
According to the company, the change affects less than 2% of users from Docker. Docker recommends users migrate to the Docker-Sponsored Open Source (DSOS) program, which it says is better suited for open source projects.
“The DSOS program is not affected by the removal of Free Team organizations. For new users who want to join the DSOS program of a previous Free Team organization, we will postpone any suspension or removal from the organization while the DSOS request is pending,” Docker's Tim Anglade explains in the blog post.
And before that, Docker says that you can pull images from their private repositories to the Docker registry and push those images to another registry of your choice.
Furthermore, the company claims that even if your organization is suspended, removed, or if you decide to leave Docker voluntarily, your organization's namespace will not be released, so other users cannot "occupy your images."
If Docker suspends organizations but keeps images public, those images may no longer be updated and therefore become outdated. Docker has not commented on this point.
Some developers still feel like they are being held hostage. And others, like Neil Hanlon of the Rocky Linux project, say they still haven't received a response from Docker regarding their applications for the DSOS program.
Many of those complaining about this change are running open source projects with build dependencies that could fail. Some projects, like Livebook, already plan to move all Docker containers to the GitHub Container Registry, but they will need to migrate their old images manually. The Kubernetes Kind project is also considering other options.
Finally, if you are interested in knowing more about it, you can consult the details In the following link.
A comment, leave yours
Pure technicality, the decision remains the same and the DSOS policies have to work differently compared to those that are about to be eliminated, so it is not as transparent a change as they want to propose... Now with the new statement apologizing, arguing a lack in the previous communication, reminds me of the book It's the Cow's Fault.