Docker Acquires Mutagen

I'd point out that most of the foundational components of Docker's technology stack are FOSS (e.g. [0] [1]). Mutagen also has (and had, prior to acquisition) closed-source components and components licensed under non-OSI licenses (e.g. SSPL), so evaluate my response in that context (and also please note that these are my responses, and not representative of Docker's opinions/positions). Also, as mentioned in the acquisition FAQ [2], we don't have any plans to change the open-source licensing structure, and we're still open to contributions.

It's a delicate balance to strike, and almost more delicate to discuss. At the end of the day, an open source business is still a business, and you have to make money to eat, shelter, and continue writing code. I can certainly appreciate that there are different approaches to balancing that with open-source (e.g. consulting rather than close-sourcing), but so long as you're setting natural (non-contrived) boundaries between open-source and proprietary, then I don't think you're doing anything wrong. In fact, several companies were embedding and making money from Mutagen before I was, but that never really bothered me — that was the freedom I was affording them as users.

I have nothing but the utmost respect for user freedom and I've always strived to offer that with Mutagen (e.g. allowing people to disable components that might not fit the OSI definition of FOSS). I also have nothing but the utmost respect for the authors of open-source software; Mutagen stands on the shoulders of many different dependencies and I've always strived to ensure that we're acknowledging those in a manner that is compliant with their licensing requirements (or going above and beyond that).

In the end, it's a tough but fair question. I don't think my views have changed and I don't think there's any real incompatibility. It's a balance I'll necessarily continue to assess on a daily basis, both at Docker and in any other FOSS I write.

[0] https://github.com/docker

[1] https://github.com/moby

[2] https://www.docker.com/blog/mutagen-acquisition/#mutagen-faq

Why are acquisitions legal? Is there ever a serious argument for how a company acquiring another company is net beneficial to users/customers?

I agree with you, but I think the main argument is that it lets companies provide better products and potentially cheaper prices from vertical integration. Sometimes acquisitions are only done for the human resources, and the customers of the acquirer now benefit from that person. If your competitor knows how to make the same product but cheaper, you can buy them and now your product is cheaper.

In theory it makes tons of sense - why compete when we could work together? But as long as we're requiring companies to be profitable we can't also expect them to make decisions that are net beneficial - only net profitable, and the profit motive for wiping out competitors is clear

This is also ignoring the kinda simple case of buying for IP - if you're a toy maker and you want to sell toys for movies, you can do that for free if you also own the movie and avoid licensing fees. Or maybe you need some specific patent and a competitor won't license it to you as long as they're in business because then you legally have to work at a disadvantage - IP is kinda by definition meant to hurt consumers for a period as a reward for the holder, so removing that would make the products better

> Why are acquisitions legal?

It'd take at least semester of public policy, a semester of economics, a semester of history, and a semester of legal studies to adequately answer that.

The shorter answer is that nonnatutal persons and natural persons have the same rights to do what they want with their property, barring very specific exemptions. One of those exemptions is monopolies, but (and add this to the list of shit Ronald fucking Reagan and the university of chicago screwed up, too) in the 1980s US anti-monopoly enforcement switched from focusing on ensuring a competitive marketplace to focusing on ensuring economic efficiency and consumer welfare, so it became much much much easier to merge and acquire competitors.