Repository navigation
[BUG] Inconsistency between license information #12280
Description
Description
The license information of the docker compose source code is the Apache License. The information on the releases page for the downloadable binaries however is the docker license.
Is this on purpose? If so does this imply that one is allowed download the source code and build the binaries on their own using the Apache license?
Purpose is to use the docker compose binaries outside of the scope of docker desktop.
Steps To Reproduce
Consult
https://github.com/docker/compose/releases/download/v2.30.3/LICENSE
vs
https://github.com/docker/compose/blob/main/LICENSE
Compose Version
Docker Environment
Anything else?
No response
Activity
ndeloof commentedon Nov 11, 2024
Yes. The source code is under Apache License - you can reuse it and build your own compose binaries - but the pre-built binaries as distributed under Docker End User License Agreement. While arguably confusing, this has no impact on using those regardless your usage of Docker Desktop.
ndeloof commentedon Nov 11, 2024
https://github.com/docker/compose/blob/main/packaging/LICENSE should offer a link to "Docker End User License Agreement" for clarification
CarstenLeue commentedon Nov 12, 2024
Hi @ndeloof thank you for the clarification. You write:
Would you pls. be so kind to clarify about this point. The Apache License differs from the Docker ELA as far as I can see. When writing that there was no impact, are you suggesting that they are equivalent wrt to the use of the binaries?
ndeloof commentedon Nov 12, 2024
nope, as Docker EULA only applies to binaries and is not an OSS license. I just mean using Compose binaries standalone doesn't count as a "seat" regarding Docker subscription licensing.
github-actions commentedon Apr 13, 2025
This issue has been automatically marked as stale because it has not had recent activity. It will be closed if no further activity occurs. Thank you for your contributions.