I'm glad you bring up partners! They're what I personally focus on 24x7, so have a lot to say on the topic.
> The partnerships you make build your product into other products, making it the default option for anything someone might need to do with containers.
I think you can view some partnerships through that lens, but as a whole I do not believe this statement holds at all.
My #1 partnering goal is to make sure that the interest that exists in Docker can be realized on the services and products that people are using today. You'll never see us form a partnership that has any conclusion, whether direct or indirect, that the only proper way to use docker is in combination with partner technology X.
I think you could also view projects like libcontainer, which is written by some of the maintainers of Docker, and understand that it's being used by other projects not related to Docker at all. In some cases, even by perceived competition (like Pivotal.)
> Then you increase the visibility of the product (and thus the company) by getting lots of PR and making sure VCs and potential customers read it.
It is important to highlight the reasons we make these partnerships - I can assure you, it's not to get VC attention. That's completely short-sighted and unsustainable.
To the best we can, we deflect the visibility on the project on to others, big or small, doing great things with Docker.
> And honestly, the idea that 'the community' owns the Docker project is a joke.
> Is the community making the design decisions for the product?
Yes. The projects design is open. There is no privileged discussion about the Docker project - it happens all in the open on GitHub and IRC. If there's a specific area of conversation that requires in-depth collaboration, we sponsor people to meet in person. This happens regularly.
> Is the community pushing the integration of your tool with other companies and services?
Yes. Red Hat is a perfect example. Pre-0.7, any Red Hat customer could not use Docker because of 1) AUFS not being available on the platform, 2) Docker not being supported on Red Hat. So anyone using Docker on Red Hat at that time was breaking their agreement. That's a problem.
> As far as I can see, you have a company based on a product, and you give that product away because it costs you nothing to do so. Open Source is a marketing tool, and a great one at that.
We can argue the relative advantages and disadvantages of free vs. commercially licensed software all day. You can write Docker off as a sheer marketing ploy, but, I'd say that's a pretty disingenuous statement to make at an individual level of the company.
I'll also say, the trade-off does not come without cost. It's not even close to free.
> The partnerships you make build your product into other products, making it the default option for anything someone might need to do with containers.
I think you can view some partnerships through that lens, but as a whole I do not believe this statement holds at all.
My #1 partnering goal is to make sure that the interest that exists in Docker can be realized on the services and products that people are using today. You'll never see us form a partnership that has any conclusion, whether direct or indirect, that the only proper way to use docker is in combination with partner technology X.
I think you could also view projects like libcontainer, which is written by some of the maintainers of Docker, and understand that it's being used by other projects not related to Docker at all. In some cases, even by perceived competition (like Pivotal.)
> Then you increase the visibility of the product (and thus the company) by getting lots of PR and making sure VCs and potential customers read it.
It is important to highlight the reasons we make these partnerships - I can assure you, it's not to get VC attention. That's completely short-sighted and unsustainable.
To the best we can, we deflect the visibility on the project on to others, big or small, doing great things with Docker.
> And honestly, the idea that 'the community' owns the Docker project is a joke.
I'm not laughing. Maybe you're not familiar with how the Apache 2 license works. I'd get familiar with that. Link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apache_License
> Is the community making the design decisions for the product?
Yes. The projects design is open. There is no privileged discussion about the Docker project - it happens all in the open on GitHub and IRC. If there's a specific area of conversation that requires in-depth collaboration, we sponsor people to meet in person. This happens regularly.
> Is the community pushing the integration of your tool with other companies and services?
Yes. Red Hat is a perfect example. Pre-0.7, any Red Hat customer could not use Docker because of 1) AUFS not being available on the platform, 2) Docker not being supported on Red Hat. So anyone using Docker on Red Hat at that time was breaking their agreement. That's a problem.
> As far as I can see, you have a company based on a product, and you give that product away because it costs you nothing to do so. Open Source is a marketing tool, and a great one at that.
We can argue the relative advantages and disadvantages of free vs. commercially licensed software all day. You can write Docker off as a sheer marketing ploy, but, I'd say that's a pretty disingenuous statement to make at an individual level of the company.
I'll also say, the trade-off does not come without cost. It's not even close to free.