add docker build and helm chart

[KlavsKlavsen]

First edition of relate Helm chart and Dockerfile - "works for me" mode :)
Pls review, ask and we can take it from there.
NB. This is based off of https://github.com/bitnami-labs/sealed-secrets/tree/main/helm/sealed-secrets - and I've removed a lot of irrelevant stuff and added some.. but the original license still applies I'd say. I prefer GPLv3 myself - but either will do here.

[inducer]

but the original license still applies I'd say.

What is the original license? A quick skim didn't tell me.

I prefer GPLv3 myself - but either will do here.

I will not touch anything GPL'd with a 20-foot pole.

[KlavsKlavsen]

Well - the license is right there in the repo: https://github.com/bitnami-labs/sealed-secrets/blob/main/LICENSE
That sounds like a very odd and illogical attitude towards a license - which is merely one giving us more rights with it - than we would have, was it not given (as it would then be copyright rights only).
Whomever decides to grant code under whatever license they deem fit - is IMHO just very nice, as long as it fits with my goals for using the work in question ofcourse - otherwise its just unusable. (like Oracle/Sun's CDDL license of ZFS for linux.. that means it can't be merged into Linux. sad).

[inducer]

Well - the license is right there in the repo:

Ah. Didn't realize I was looking at a subfolder. Thanks!

That sounds like a very odd and illogical attitude towards a license

I'm sorry you feel that way! I'll quickly try to explain why I try to keep my licensing liberal:

• The more users something has, the better.
• The virality of the GPL makes GPL'd software high-risk for corporate users. (That's deliberate, as far as I can tell.)
• Personally, I'd prefer (voluntary) contributions from corporate folks based on gratitude over no contributions from no users because of onerous license restrictions.
• And if somebody gets rich off of what I've done, but doesn't want to share... that's fine, too. 🤷

[KlavsKlavsen]

I have never been in a company that did not highly appreciate contributing to GPL projects.
Actually MANY projects PREFER GPL - as they are then CERTAIN the contributions they share - cannot be turned around and sold as a closed-source product - where they don't get others contributions back.
And I've worked in large Danish orgs - and in my mind - that makes perfect sense - as it evens the playing field for all contributors, so the collaboration can be about the technical needs - and no one can turn around and "build their own improved edition they sell as closed source".
This is especially true for small companies - which IS 80%+ of the worlds companies - such as my own - where we try to work 100% on open source projects, to help our customers have the best open source operations setup we possibly can (as part of our obmondo.com services) - and on principle we ONLY work with Open Source - and for US - its something we can only do, as long as its under the GPL - especially when we are going to release our entire k8s management setup (which makes it very easy to manage kubernetes clusters using gitops, including recovery etc.) - which we can only do - when its under GPLv3 - as that helps protect our business model - which is that everyone who uses it - are free to contribute, but if they distribute improvements - they must be shareable with everyone. If we did not have that license - we would have no such protection and probably would not dare do it as we spend a lot of money on it.

[KlavsKlavsen]

I can understand the attitude as an individual - and it highly depends on wether or not you're building a "library" or not.. (thats why there's the LGPL from that family of licenses ;) - a project such as relate is a standalone product - so its not really something I would worry about "infecting" other software - and IMHO it makes only sense to run on 100% Open Source - and when we don't live of selling software - there will never be any "infection problem" for us - and we are free to focus on upstreaming all improvements we do, first (everyone here is told to do so) - and we, and the customers we help, benefit highly from others doing the same.
Frankly if all that fantastic open source software did not exist, pretty much ALL the companies I've worked for, would have been far worse off - and not be able to operate at such low cost as they do. This does mean most companies do not have enough people in operations to be able to afford to contribute back (or even to do things properly IMHO) - which is why we built our service, to share the open source work amongst all customes - who share 80-90% of the software - and thusly can share in the cost of improving it and the setup its used in.
I'm not a huge fan of the business model of selling a "closed source product" - but every company must find a way to exist - but I have no doubt that the large orgs (google, apple, oracle etc.) will crap on everyone, if it makes them more money - and a license such as the GPL helps protect us smaller companies - which are the ones that actually pay taxes in the countries they exist in - as opposed to the large ones which IMHO are very sad companies that no longer can see over "the huge sums of money they bring in to the owners".

[inducer]

Thanks for working on this! Is there a way to exercise this in CI? I ask because I think it would be useful to notice in case it gets broken.

[KlavsKlavsen]

I know some spin up k3s in CI - as its lightweight enough - to be used for testing - so that should be possible.