remove Docker EULA licensing which isn't relevant

[ndeloof]

There's no Docker EULA anymore since Docker switched to a subscription model

fix #12280

[ndeloof]

cc @rickredondo

[thaJeztah]

This should not be filled in in the license; this section is an example how to apply the license (which is done by adding the headers to the source code and/or a NOTICE file).

We also don't own the copyright, so this would be incorrect in either case

[ndeloof]

I used https://github.com/docker/cli/blob/master/LICENSE#L179 for reference 🥲

[ndeloof]

same on https://github.com/moby/moby/blob/master/LICENSE#L179 😅

[thaJeztah]

I know! And it's been wrong since forever. Still want to change that (and apply proper license headers), but I may need approval from legal

[thaJeztah]

The TL;DR is that (for Apache 2)

• Adding a LICENSE file to the repository does NOT apply the license (the LICENSE file is only there for convenience, and not even strictly neeeded; it's just so that those using the software don't have to download it from the apache website)
• The "copyright" section in the Apache 2 LICENSE file is basically part of the documentation; the section above it literally describes "how to apply the license", which mentions "to apply the license, take the snippet below, fill in the copyright lines, and add it to each and every file that the license must be applied to". Also add a NOTICE file to document other legal constraints or licenses (such as patents, licenses of dependencies used (go.mod / vendor))
• Given that we DON'T have a CLA, no copyright is transferred, which means that the copyright is owned by the "AUTHOR" of each line of code.
• ☝️ and because mentioning each individual author ... for each file .. would be a bit lengthy, it's common to use "The Authors" (or "The <insert project name> Authors") as copyright holder.
• ☝️ and the copyright "year" is implied from year of publication for each line of code, which basically is "date it was pushed to GitHub", so the copyright-years will be different for each file
• ☝️ given that source is in source-control, it's therefore usually OK to omit copyright year(s) altogether, as it can be deducted from git-history. But alternatively, it's not uncommon to add a "first year of publication of the code (as a whole)"

Also see;

• containerd/containerd@b12c321
• kubernetes/kubernetes@d30db1f
  • related discussion; Please update the LICENSE with the copyright holder kubernetes/kubernetes-template-project#3

[thaJeztah]

Related to the above; this is also why there's an AUTHORS file in the Moby (and other) repositories, as that effectively lists the copyright-holders; https://github.com/moby/moby/blob/master/AUTHORS

[ndeloof]

dropped second commit

[thaJeztah]

Should this one be swapped for the top-level LICENSE, or was a license already added as part of one of the steps?

[ndeloof]

AFAIK compose is the only docker artifact where we include a LICENSE file with built artifact (for legacy reasons)
Licensing is already set by github project and source code archive

[thaJeztah]

Ah, right; I wasn't sure if folks would expect it to be there.

I know / recall it's included in the .deb and/or .rpm packages but that's probably separate from this?