
CoreOS's rkt and Docker's containerd jointly donated to CNCF - philips
https://coreos.com/blog/rkt-container-runtime-to-the-cncf.html
======
mevile
This is great news. It's great that the bigger players in container runtimes
are working together more, it makes me hopeful for the future. This is great
for users and developers.

------
fs111
so there is no money in either technology, is that what it means?

~~~
wmf
There definitely was never any money in basic container runtimes, but this
move is more like Docker playing nice after Red Hat & Google threatened to
burn it down. And I guess rkt got thrown in for FOMO.

~~~
bogomipz
>"this move is more like Docker playing nice after Red Hat & Google threatened
to burn it down."

Can you elaborate on this particular incident?

~~~
wmf
[https://thenewstack.io/docker-fork-talk-split-now-
table/](https://thenewstack.io/docker-fork-talk-split-now-table/)

~~~
bogomipz
Oh right I forgot about this, thanks.

~~~
shykes
Containerd was introduced in January 2016.

~~~
bogomipz
Sure containerd was 1.10 right? How does that relate to the OPs link above?

------
timthelion
What is up with the use of the term "donated" when in comes to transfering
control of open source code to a standards body? There is no legal transfer
taking place, and politically, there if there is a power transfer, the power
transfer happens in the form of the "doner" gaining more power over the
"receiver". In the real world of serious standard bodies, the standard body
does not "receive a donation of a standard" but works on choosing and
developing the best standard possible based on technical merits.

~~~
crb
There absolutely is a legal transfer. the donation assigns copyright, and
normally includes the intellectual property rights of the trademark and logo.

In theory, the recipient could choose to relicense.

~~~
richardfontana
In these particular cases I would expect there would be no assignment of
copyright (however I would assume you're right about trademarks).

Despite the fact that there most likely is some transfer of intellectual
property contemplated here, I do think the term "donation" is a little odd
when describing stewardship transfer of open source projects to nonprofits --
though it's fairly well established (I associate it mainly with the Apache
Software Foundation).

To me "donation", based on its ordinary usage in English, suggests "here's
something I don't need anymore; you can have it, I won't have any further
involvement in it." That does fit certain situations (an example that comes to
mind is Oracle's transfer of OpenOffice to the ASF).

~~~
dankohn1
Hi, Richard. You're correct that CNCF requires projects to provide the
trademark, but we don't need copyright, because the ASLv2 license the code is
already under is sufficient. "Contribute" might be better word than "donate".

But it all a very open-source-oriented, metaphysical concept, in that by
giving up some control over a project, the company that originated it is
hopefully going to bring in many more contributors and ultimately increase
both the total value of the project and the value to them. A core CNCF value
proposition to projects [0] is that: "A neutral home for your project
increases the willingness of developers from other companies and independent
developers to collaborate, contribute, and become committers."

Solomon made a useful analogy [1] that "rough comparison: Docker EE=RHEL,
CE=Fedora, containerd=Linux".

[0] [https://www.cncf.io/projects/](https://www.cncf.io/projects/) [1]
[https://twitter.com/solomonstre/status/837313258252091393](https://twitter.com/solomonstre/status/837313258252091393)

Disclosure: I'm the executive director of CNCF and have been working with
Docker on their contribution of containerd and with CoreOS on their
contribution of rkt.

