3 ms·
To be clear they’re violating the terms of service of fakercloud.com is the implication I took from this Not so much an issue with them using faker.JS, though
by no_wizard 5y ago
To be clear they’re violating the terms of service of fakercloud.com is the implication I took from this
Not so much an issue with them using faker.JS, though honestly companies should do more to pay for development of these kinds of libraries that they depend on, it isn’t the core issue here
Which by the way is a great service if you are in the market and would fully managed fake data api
- adam_arthur 5y agoDoes it violate the TOS though? I didn't see that mentioned in the article. But if so, then definitely a problem. They would then have a valid legal case against the company, I assume.
- bryan0 5y agoI think they should make that clearer in the blog post because it really wasn’t clear to me. So they’re paying for fakercloud and providing that data to their customers? It seems like this would then be a TOS issue as you mentioned.
- oh_sigh 5y agoDid they ever accept the fakercloud TOS? If faker.js, an open source library, creates links to fakercloud.com - a for-profit offering, then someone who is merely using faker.js isn't falling afoul of the fakercloud.com TOS since they were never even presented with it in the first place. https://github.com/Marak/faker.js/blob/c9764abd20a198e318367952a94587eda1bac645/lib/internet.js#L15 https://github.com/Marak/faker.js/blob/c9764abd20a198e318367...
- bryan0 5y agoYeah this explains it. Not a TOS prob then. You can’t complain when your software generates links to fakercloud.com by default.
- deleted 5y ago[deleted]