Add Labels to Docker Images

[jabdoa2]

As a user I want to know where stuff in my image came from. Those standardized tags allow automated tools to find the source code. For instance, this will allow renovate bot to show a changelog (based on the github releases) and provide a nice link to the repo.

[oxzi]

Thanks a lot for your contribution and for using Icinga DB. Please consider the feedback, thanks.

[oxzi]

According to the docs, .licenses should be an SPDX License Expression.

Suggested change

	org.opencontainers.image.licenses='GPL-2.0+'
	org.opencontainers.image.licenses='GPL-2.0-or-later'

[Al2Klimov]

Nope.

Suggested change

	org.opencontainers.image.licenses='GPL-2.0+'
	org.opencontainers.image.licenses='GPL-2.0-only'

[oxzi]

Are you sure? The Dockerfile has GPLv2+ in its header.

docker-icingadb/Dockerfile

Line 1 in a362254

# Icinga DB Docker image | (c) 2020 Icinga GmbH | GPLv2+

[jabdoa2]

The LICENSE file states either version 2 of the License, or (at your option) any later version. In my opinion that would be the final authorative legal source and indicates GPL-2.0+/GPL-2.0-or-later

[Al2Klimov]

Let's skip the question how it is now directly to how should it be. GPLv2 or v2+? @lippserd

[jabdoa2]

We can also drop the label for now. It is not super important to tag that to the image (at least for us). If you want I can remove it.

[oxzi]

The change looks good to me. Thanks again for your contribution!

There is still the licensing question, where @Al2Klimov pointed out in his comment #73 (comment), that it should be GPL-2.0-only.

IANAL, but the mere presence of @jabdoa2's quoted chapter in the GPL 2 license document does not affect the project, #73 (comment). This very document states how the license should be applied, but unfortunately almost nobody does this exactly this way, https://github.com/Icinga/icingadb/blob/main/LICENSE#L282.

Back in Icinga/icingadb#9 @Al2Klimov attached licensing headers to the Icinga DB source, implying GPLv2+. In the meantime, those headers have disappeared almost everywhere, except in the two schema files, https://github.com/Icinga/icingadb/blob/f9ce7a57bcb6a5b6b2ebfafafd8f91367e56bbf5/schema/mysql/schema.sql#L1. I am not quite certain, but it seems they were removed during the project restructuring in Icinga/icingadb#277.

Because you were there, @Al2Klimov, I would like to hear your insights or final words.

[jabdoa2]

The change looks good to me. Thanks again for your contribution!

There is still the licensing question, where @Al2Klimov pointed out in his comment #73 (comment), that it should be GPL-2.0-only.

IANAL, but the mere presence of @jabdoa2's quoted chapter in the GPL 2 license document does not affect the project, #73 (comment). This very document states how the license should be applied, but unfortunately almost nobody does this exactly this way, https://github.com/Icinga/icingadb/blob/main/LICENSE#L282.

Back in Icinga/icingadb#9 @Al2Klimov attached licensing headers to the Icinga DB source, implying GPLv2+. In the meantime, those headers have disappeared almost everywhere, except in the two schema files, https://github.com/Icinga/icingadb/blob/f9ce7a57bcb6a5b6b2ebfafafd8f91367e56bbf5/schema/mysql/schema.sql#L1. I am not quite certain, but it seems they were removed during the project restructuring in Icinga/icingadb#277.

Because you were there, @Al2Klimov, I would like to hear your insights or final words.

That would be indeed good to be very clear about that as the legal department in every large cooperation will request this information.