5 ms·

This is the exact thing I was hoping would happen when I posted this

throwaway_25434 5y ago
I don’t see why having the CEO of a company justify themselves, and bear the burden of proof, for using an MIT library would be a desired outcome.
- refulgentis 5y ago
  Put another way, he forgot to get back to the guy whose project/hosting space his company was using, for a whole month, and he came back with a classy response and decent amount of detail. Everybody wins. Except the people who think there's a court in session here and are worried us plebians are putting _CEOs of companies_ on trial
  - klohto 5y ago
    Atleast put some effort into reading all the material if you want to shame somebody. 1) Initial email was sales pitch that did not touch the problem at all. Which retool responded to by the way. 2) CDN is hardcoded into the JS library. Why would you even do that and then shame people? If it’s against the ToS then you need people point to the ToS first. It’s the author’s fault here. 3) MIT license. How many times do we have to go through this. Retool could just fuck off but even before this witch hunt began, they were already donating. 4) Some human communication explaining the problem wouldn’t hurt. Personally I’m more likely to turn down using faker.js now.
    - serial_dev 5y ago
      This is a very good overview of the situation. It's sad how Retool's name was dragged through the mud for daring to use an MIT licensed open source project.
      - refulgentis 5y ago
        "dragged through the mud"? :X people way overreact online
      - jjeaff 5y ago
        They still need to be dragged a bit for copying someone's project. There is nothing against it in the license, but it is still pretty crappy to copy someone's offering and offer it up for free. Especially when you built your free offering on the back of the product you are killing.
        serial_dev 5y ago
        I disagree. If you don't want anyone just come by, copy your product and offer it for free, don't release it under MIT. There is no "bro code" when it comes to software licenses.
        refulgentis 5y ago
        It's generally considered bad form to privatize OSS for your own gain, whether there's a price tag on it on day 1 or not. Ex. VLCs issues over the years
        pwdisswordfish8 5y ago
        By its very nature, the "bro code" refers to a "code" that doesn't actually exist, which makes your comment quite ironic. On measures of aptness, that makes it a comparison that's not apposite at all, but instead opposite.
    - JimDabell 5y ago
      > CDN is hardcoded into the JS library. Why would you even do that and then shame people? It’s worth noting that before the fakercloud.com URLs were hard-coded into the library, the library was hard-coding a different service’s S3 URLs (uifaces.co) and only stopped when they became inaccessible: https://github.com/Marak/faker.js/commit/e45648439ff5dd9adbec72831d2e5d1b423a5261 https://github.com/Marak/faker.js/commit/e45648439ff5dd9adbe... https://github.com/Marak/faker.js/issues/1055 https://github.com/Marak/faker.js/issues/1055 So it seems a little unfair to complain that Retool are embedding URLs to your CDN when this library was doing the same thing to UI Faces a few months ago.
      - austhrow743 5y ago
        Oh damn really? What a sleazy hypocritical thing to do.
hamburglar 5y ago
Is there some reason that, at least 13 hours later, the blog post hasn’t been replaced with a mea culpa for accusing these folks of something that ended up being a problem in your own library?
- jjeaff 5y ago
  They still copied the fakercloud site, did they not?
  - hamburglar 5y ago
    My understanding is they used faker.js to generate urls, and those urls referenced fakercloud. So the open source project faker.js ends up pointing you at fakercloud without realizing it.
- pwdisswordfish8 5y ago
  What power do you think the person you're responding to has over the content of the linked blog post? They're the link submitter, not the post author.
  - hamburglar 5y ago
    Oh, damn. I thought I’d read further down the thread that they were one and the same but I see he specifically says otherwise. I guess it’s me that owes the mea culpa.

I don’t see why having the CEO of a company justify themselves, and bear the burden of proof, for using an MIT library would be a desired outcome.

refulgentis 5y ago
Put another way, he forgot to get back to the guy whose project/hosting space his company was using, for a whole month, and he came back with a classy response and decent amount of detail. Everybody wins. Except the people who think there's a court in session here and are worried us plebians are putting _CEOs of companies_ on trial
- klohto 5y ago
  Atleast put some effort into reading all the material if you want to shame somebody. 1) Initial email was sales pitch that did not touch the problem at all. Which retool responded to by the way. 2) CDN is hardcoded into the JS library. Why would you even do that and then shame people? If it’s against the ToS then you need people point to the ToS first. It’s the author’s fault here. 3) MIT license. How many times do we have to go through this. Retool could just fuck off but even before this witch hunt began, they were already donating. 4) Some human communication explaining the problem wouldn’t hurt. Personally I’m more likely to turn down using faker.js now.
  - serial_dev 5y ago
    This is a very good overview of the situation. It's sad how Retool's name was dragged through the mud for daring to use an MIT licensed open source project.
    - refulgentis 5y ago
      "dragged through the mud"? :X people way overreact online
    - jjeaff 5y ago
      They still need to be dragged a bit for copying someone's project. There is nothing against it in the license, but it is still pretty crappy to copy someone's offering and offer it up for free. Especially when you built your free offering on the back of the product you are killing.
      - serial_dev 5y ago
        I disagree. If you don't want anyone just come by, copy your product and offer it for free, don't release it under MIT. There is no "bro code" when it comes to software licenses.
        refulgentis 5y ago
        It's generally considered bad form to privatize OSS for your own gain, whether there's a price tag on it on day 1 or not. Ex. VLCs issues over the years
        pwdisswordfish8 5y ago
        By its very nature, the "bro code" refers to a "code" that doesn't actually exist, which makes your comment quite ironic. On measures of aptness, that makes it a comparison that's not apposite at all, but instead opposite.
  - JimDabell 5y ago
    > CDN is hardcoded into the JS library. Why would you even do that and then shame people? It’s worth noting that before the fakercloud.com URLs were hard-coded into the library, the library was hard-coding a different service’s S3 URLs (uifaces.co) and only stopped when they became inaccessible: https://github.com/Marak/faker.js/commit/e45648439ff5dd9adbec72831d2e5d1b423a5261 https://github.com/Marak/faker.js/commit/e45648439ff5dd9adbe... https://github.com/Marak/faker.js/issues/1055 https://github.com/Marak/faker.js/issues/1055 So it seems a little unfair to complain that Retool are embedding URLs to your CDN when this library was doing the same thing to UI Faces a few months ago.
    - austhrow743 5y ago
      Oh damn really? What a sleazy hypocritical thing to do.

hamburglar 5y ago

Is there some reason that, at least 13 hours later, the blog post hasn’t been replaced with a mea culpa for accusing these folks of something that ended up being a problem in your own library?

jjeaff 5y ago
They still copied the fakercloud site, did they not?
- hamburglar 5y ago
  My understanding is they used faker.js to generate urls, and those urls referenced fakercloud. So the open source project faker.js ends up pointing you at fakercloud without realizing it.
pwdisswordfish8 5y ago
What power do you think the person you're responding to has over the content of the linked blog post? They're the link submitter, not the post author.
- hamburglar 5y ago
  Oh, damn. I thought I’d read further down the thread that they were one and the same but I see he specifically says otherwise. I guess it’s me that owes the mea culpa.