[gganley]

Not that I don't believe that's entirely possible, but do you have a link to something demonstrating this behavior? A _very_ cursory google search didn't come up with anything immediately.

Like this article might just be for show but its the first thing that came up ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ https://grafana.com/docs/grafana/latest/developers/contribut...

[dpkirchner]

Grafana requires you to sign a CLA before they will accept any work, which can be really expensive (unless you have in-house lawyers or don't care about understanding the real ramifications of a contract): https://grafana.com/docs/grafana/latest/developers/cla/

[r3trohack3r]

This appears to be a 7 clause contract written in good faith to ensure Grafana Labs can continue building a product and service offering around their open source project after accepting your contribution.

Am I missing something? Do you have any specific problems with the CLA? Is there an alternative option to a CLA that ensures the original copyright owner can continue offering the code base under multiple licenses after accepting an external contribution?

[dpkirchner]

Perhaps my contributions are also made in good faith with full awareness that they are subject to the licenses?

We did OSS for decades without CLAs and most projects still do not require CLAs.

[r3trohack3r]

Subject to which licenses? The current license? Is Grafana obligated to keep the licenses they distribute the current software under unmodified forever after you contribute? Do they loose their right to modify the license of the codebase with your contribution? If they decide to move it to GPL, do they need to get your permission first? If they decide to take the project closed source, do they need your permission? Can you sue for damages if they don’t get your permission first?

Your good faith doesn’t hold up in court and I understand why they’d want to clarify ownership of the contributions. Just because we’ve always done it this way doesn’t mean people aren’t open to liability. Just because another project accepts the risk of a random contributor winning a lawsuit against them doesn’t mean Grafana should. I’m surprised CLAs aren’t more common.

I was personally surprised at how generous their CLA was with ownership rights for you and your contribution to the project. You retain a lot when contributing.

[guhcampos]

Do you also run every single EULA through your lawyers?

CLAs are becoming common because litigation is becoming common. It's a product of our times and mostly a safeguard for companies in case a person is able to slip in some malevolent code or write hate speech in docs, or if someone tries to claim copyright on docs/code.

[striking]

Is there anything nonstandard or suspicious about this CLA?

[ilyt]

The fact it is CLA means they want to have option to close the code.

I can see someone giving their work to OSS project not wanting the corporation that took it to have option to just take it and close.

Linux kernel uses "Developer Certificate of Origin" which is basically just "I certify that I contribute stuff I have rights for". That is enough.

CLA is entirely to detriment of actual OSS

[dpkirchner]

I don't know. Do you really know what you're giving up by signing these? I'd have to study CLAs and hope that I am interpreting them correctly within our respective jurisdictions, or ask a lawyer.

All of this stands in the way of contributing. And this is their decision to make, of course, but it is hostile to would-be contributors.

[the-grump]

If you don't understand the legal implications of the license and CLA, please don't start rumours like "Grafana discourages contributions from the community, even for its documentation".

I could try explain to you what the purpose of a CLA is, but you could also easily put in the effort by going on Google.

Make sure to also look into the implications of contributing code with an OSS license, any license. That's as much contract as a CLA is.

[ilyt]

> Do you really know what you're giving up by signing these?

Yes. Everything. That's the point of near-every CLA.

So the corporation behind it have option to close the code if they want to, taking your contributions with it.

Some corps might not ever do it, but any company is one MBA away from "what we can cut from OSS version and move to enterprise to get more customers"?

[striking]

I mean, this flatly contradicts this line in the CLA:

> Except for the license granted herein to Grafana Labs and recipients of software distributed by Grafana Labs, You reserve all right, title, and interest in and to Your Contributions. [emphasis mine]

You can always use the version of the code your contributions went into. You still own the code you wrote, and still retain the rest of theirs under its original license. You're just not entitled to future versions of the source like a copyleft license without a CLA would grant.

I understand not being excited to serve corporate interests (that's what a CLA does), but posting intellectually uncurious flamebait as a result makes for boring reading.

[striking]

I do, actually. It looks like a standard CLA. It grants them a perpetual license to whatever code you're contributing and allows them to use it as they please, and not affecting any of your other rights. There's also some stuff in there about you only contributing code that you actually have the right to contribute, and how to manage edge cases around that. It's fairly standard when someone intends to be able to use your contribution as part of a greater open-core / closed-source distribution and to be able to simplify licensing matters. They have to protect their own interests and they're doing so in a manner that basically doesn't affect you at all.

Do you hire a lawyer any time you encounter an unfamiliar OSS license? I assume you don't, or you'd have a hard time using any modern packaging ecosystem.

[the-grump]

That's a run-of-the-mill CLA.