4 ms·

It's actually really sad that someone who has easily generated millions of dollars of value with their work gets nothing for it. Yeah yeah, it's open source, bu

by xenihn 6y ago

It's actually really sad that someone who has easily generated millions of dollars of value with their work gets nothing for it. Yeah yeah, it's open source, but it still sucks. I'm assuming they can't be compensated easily due to legal reasons?

corty 6y ago
They won't be compensated easily due to cheapness reasons. Anything legal is just an excuse (assuming Marak isn't on some terrorist blacklist or something).
- xenihn 6y ago
  I'd be interested to know if that's really the case. Hopefully some people can weigh in. I really don't want to believe that what you think is true because it's upsetting.
- arthurcolle 6y ago
  Interesting you should mention that, New York Post claims he was arrested for having bomb-making materials in his apartment which may be related to the apartment fire he discusses on his Twitter! https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25032426 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25032426
  - corty 6y ago
    I'll have myself checked for psychic abilities...
bdcravens 6y ago
True, but is there anything new here? That's been an conundrum as long as open source has been a thing. There are also example of open source developers who have made a great living from their projects. That's on the developer to find a business model that works.
Fordec 6y ago
Can't or won't? He's literally saying "hire me if you want this". If that's too high a bar for "generating millions of dollars of value" then something is grossly wrong and headline worthy in of itself.
lazyasciiart 6y ago
Looks like he does get paid a little bit by half a dozen companies/employees - maybe $1200/month? https://opencollective.com/fakerjs#backer https://opencollective.com/fakerjs#backer But yea, people aren't paying because they don't want to pay. I've written something similar at work in the past, and the work required to support a single fixed scenario is so much less than the work required to support a generic tool that it would have felt hard to justify paying for something instead of building it, if I'd known about this at the time.
- trevyn 6y ago
  Looking at the Open Collective transaction log, looks more on the order of ~$20/month. (With some variation caused by one-time donations.)
  - lazyasciiart 6y ago
    Oops, I think I couldn’t tell the difference between onetime and recurring donations.
noisy_boy 6y ago
There is a "Sponsor" link right at the top of the Github page. Companies sponsor all sorts of initiative so I don't see the what legal reasons would prohibit sponsoring here.
marcus_holmes 6y ago
The problem is that adding some open source code to a project when it's free is simple, easy, and can be done without oversight (it shouldn't, but it can). If the code couldn't be added without paying the owner a sum of money and receiving a licence in return (i.e. something that would have to be archived and looked after), then it all gets more difficult. Budgets have to be allocated, spending authorised, receipts processed, etc. This would require approval from authority, and they would want assurances frrom the supplier that the code is well-maintained, does what it says it does, etc. Someone would have to review the code, and that costs time and more money. They might even have to review multiple alternatives to ensure that the project selected is the right project. At this point commercial suppliers get invited into the room, who send professional salesfolk to a meeting with management, and the whole ball game changes. This isn't "management bullshit". It's what should happen in a well-run organisation with a good procurement process. If you want to sell your software, that's the game you play, and you better hite professional salesfolk to get your cash. If you don't want to play that game, then give it away for free. But don't whine later that it created "millions in value" and you didn't get any of that.

by xenihn 6y ago

corty 6y ago

They won't be compensated easily due to cheapness reasons. Anything legal is just an excuse (assuming Marak isn't on some terrorist blacklist or something).

xenihn 6y ago
I'd be interested to know if that's really the case. Hopefully some people can weigh in. I really don't want to believe that what you think is true because it's upsetting.
arthurcolle 6y ago
Interesting you should mention that, New York Post claims he was arrested for having bomb-making materials in his apartment which may be related to the apartment fire he discusses on his Twitter! https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25032426 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25032426
- corty 6y ago
  I'll have myself checked for psychic abilities...

bdcravens 6y ago

True, but is there anything new here? That's been an conundrum as long as open source has been a thing. There are also example of open source developers who have made a great living from their projects. That's on the developer to find a business model that works.

Fordec 6y ago

Can't or won't? He's literally saying "hire me if you want this". If that's too high a bar for "generating millions of dollars of value" then something is grossly wrong and headline worthy in of itself.

lazyasciiart 6y ago

Looks like he does get paid a little bit by half a dozen companies/employees - maybe $1200/month? https://opencollective.com/fakerjs#backer https://opencollective.com/fakerjs#backer But yea, people aren't paying because they don't want to pay. I've written something similar at work in the past, and the work required to support a single fixed scenario is so much less than the work required to support a generic tool that it would have felt hard to justify paying for something instead of building it, if I'd known about this at the time.

trevyn 6y ago
Looking at the Open Collective transaction log, looks more on the order of ~$20/month. (With some variation caused by one-time donations.)
- lazyasciiart 6y ago
  Oops, I think I couldn’t tell the difference between onetime and recurring donations.

noisy_boy 6y ago

There is a "Sponsor" link right at the top of the Github page. Companies sponsor all sorts of initiative so I don't see the what legal reasons would prohibit sponsoring here.

marcus_holmes 6y ago

The problem is that adding some open source code to a project when it's free is simple, easy, and can be done without oversight (it shouldn't, but it can). If the code couldn't be added without paying the owner a sum of money and receiving a licence in return (i.e. something that would have to be archived and looked after), then it all gets more difficult. Budgets have to be allocated, spending authorised, receipts processed, etc. This would require approval from authority, and they would want assurances frrom the supplier that the code is well-maintained, does what it says it does, etc. Someone would have to review the code, and that costs time and more money. They might even have to review multiple alternatives to ensure that the project selected is the right project. At this point commercial suppliers get invited into the room, who send professional salesfolk to a meeting with management, and the whole ball game changes. This isn't "management bullshit". It's what should happen in a well-run organisation with a good procurement process. If you want to sell your software, that's the game you play, and you better hite professional salesfolk to get your cash. If you don't want to play that game, then give it away for free. But don't whine later that it created "millions in value" and you didn't get any of that.