Loki is open source. OP should take some of that frustrated energy and create a PR to improve the docs. I don't think this is a matter of Grafana Inc not wanting people to run Loki themselves but rather a resource constraints issue.
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...
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.
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.
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"?
> 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.
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.
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
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?
We did OSS for decades without CLAs and most projects still do not require CLAs.
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.
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.
The last contributor to the docs was an hour ago (at time of writing this comment) and came from a maintainer not employed by Grafana Labs.
Looking down the recent commits I see lots of activities from non-Grafana employees that have been accepted.
If there are specific issues with contributing docs or code please do point me towards them.
Every day I wake up and spend at least an hour reading and responding to issues and PRs in the Tempo repo.