6 ms·

I don't think he cares at this point. I think this is a person that has been driven to the absolute end of their patience. If he's really barely been getting b

I don't think he cares at this point. I think this is a person that has been driven to the absolute end of their patience. If he's really barely been getting by, then I can only imagine the sheer frustration he must be feeling. Not only are there swathes of fortune 500 companies which depend on his package but don't contribute a dime, but he also had a company with millions of dollars in funding look at his idea and then weaponize his own project to beat him to market.

qaq 5y ago
what idea?
- IceDane 5y ago
  https://web.archive.org/web/20210628030444/https://marak.com/blog/2021-04-25-monetizing-open-source-is-problematic https://web.archive.org/web/20210628030444/https://marak.com...
  - qaq 5y ago
    still confused faker.js is in no way an original project, ruby faker is 4 years older than faker.js and I doubt it's the oldest.
    - bdcravens 5y ago
      Ruby version was based on the Perl version, and this author acknowledged his was based on those 2 versions (from the previous version's README): faker.js was inspired by and has used data definitions from: https://github.com/stympy/faker/ - Copyright (c) 2007-2010 Benjamin Curtis http://search.cpan.org/~jasonk/Data-Faker-0.07/ - Copyright 2004-2005 by Jason Kohles
      - qaq 5y ago
        so what was stolen exactly?
        Macha 5y ago
        The Perl package is GPL. He took definitions from it, ported them to JS, and licensed them as MIT. "Is license violation theft?" is one of those questions like "Is piracy theft?", but it does undermine his insistence that he should be allowed commercialise the result.
        hnfong 5y ago
        It depends on whether you think copying a list of constants from what is essentially an “API” is copyright infringement. It’s a contentious topic, but last I heard people here tend to believe it isn’t (as long as it’s Google copying Oracle’s stuff)
        Liquid_Fire 5y ago
        Those sound like two distinct things to me: - Copying an interface for the purpose of providing a compatible implementation (what Google allegedly did - although of course part of the debate is whether they also copied any of the implementation) - Copying parts of the implementation, not for the purpose of compatibility (what faker.js did - in this case, copying constants)
        hnfong 5y ago
        IIRC US copyright law gives very little protection to compilation of non-copyrightable data (look up copyright status of telephone directories). The argument is that it's just public domain factual information bundled together. The faker libraries are all that -- compilations of mostly non-copyrightable facts. I'm not saying faker.js did no wrong, just saying if hypothetically a purported copyright owner sued him, they would have a really hard time proving substantial infringement happened given the available precedents.
  - dceddia 5y ago
    Discussed at the time: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27252066 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27252066
mulmen 5y ago
It seems completely insane to me to give away work and then expect compensation for it.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- godDLL 5y ago
  But completely sane to base your project on a package of code you don't control? Or to lock up his Github account for exercising his prerogative onto his own code? His behaviour is unusual, but that, you know, could change easily. It could become the normal just like that. Puff.
  - prepend 5y ago
    > But completely sane to base your project on a package of code you don't control? Yes, certainly. I think this is sane because with OSS you can control it if you need to. Until then use what exists. It’s sane to use Linux in my project even though I don’t control that. I suppose it’s also sane to use Windows even though I don’t control that.
    - godDLL 5y ago
      So you just leave Windows update on in production? Brave man.
      - prepend 5y ago
        Depending on something doesn’t mean crazy. I depend on lots of OSS projects (and windows), but I have a management system where I control what gets updated and when.
        godDLL 5y ago
        You control what gets updated and when. There we are.
bdcravens 5y ago
Of course he acknowledged his reality: "they can legally copy your Intellectual Property" But let's be honest - if they hadn't copied his, they could have easily used the Ruby or Perl version. All he did was port a previous library.
A4ET8a8uTh0 5y ago
His twitter page complaining that his github got locked-up suggests he cares. I am not unsympathetic, but only because, I am starting to see this more as an effort to undermine open source as a movement/cause.
- glenneroo 5y ago
  Then again he seems quite proud of getting banned from Github in 2013 for "creating a script that forced people to watch a library that [he] created": https://youtu.be/varf6oWaFtU?t=202 https://youtu.be/varf6oWaFtU?t=202

qaq 5y ago

what idea?

IceDane 5y ago
https://web.archive.org/web/20210628030444/https://marak.com/blog/2021-04-25-monetizing-open-source-is-problematic https://web.archive.org/web/20210628030444/https://marak.com...
- qaq 5y ago
  still confused faker.js is in no way an original project, ruby faker is 4 years older than faker.js and I doubt it's the oldest.
  - bdcravens 5y ago
    Ruby version was based on the Perl version, and this author acknowledged his was based on those 2 versions (from the previous version's README): faker.js was inspired by and has used data definitions from: https://github.com/stympy/faker/ - Copyright (c) 2007-2010 Benjamin Curtis http://search.cpan.org/~jasonk/Data-Faker-0.07/ - Copyright 2004-2005 by Jason Kohles
    - qaq 5y ago
      so what was stolen exactly?
      - Macha 5y ago
        The Perl package is GPL. He took definitions from it, ported them to JS, and licensed them as MIT. "Is license violation theft?" is one of those questions like "Is piracy theft?", but it does undermine his insistence that he should be allowed commercialise the result.
        hnfong 5y ago
        It depends on whether you think copying a list of constants from what is essentially an “API” is copyright infringement. It’s a contentious topic, but last I heard people here tend to believe it isn’t (as long as it’s Google copying Oracle’s stuff)
        Liquid_Fire 5y ago
        Those sound like two distinct things to me: - Copying an interface for the purpose of providing a compatible implementation (what Google allegedly did - although of course part of the debate is whether they also copied any of the implementation) - Copying parts of the implementation, not for the purpose of compatibility (what faker.js did - in this case, copying constants)
        hnfong 5y ago
        IIRC US copyright law gives very little protection to compilation of non-copyrightable data (look up copyright status of telephone directories). The argument is that it's just public domain factual information bundled together. The faker libraries are all that -- compilations of mostly non-copyrightable facts. I'm not saying faker.js did no wrong, just saying if hypothetically a purported copyright owner sued him, they would have a really hard time proving substantial infringement happened given the available precedents.
- dceddia 5y ago
  Discussed at the time: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27252066 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27252066

mulmen 5y ago

It seems completely insane to me to give away work and then expect compensation for it.

deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
godDLL 5y ago
But completely sane to base your project on a package of code you don't control? Or to lock up his Github account for exercising his prerogative onto his own code? His behaviour is unusual, but that, you know, could change easily. It could become the normal just like that. Puff.
- prepend 5y ago
  > But completely sane to base your project on a package of code you don't control? Yes, certainly. I think this is sane because with OSS you can control it if you need to. Until then use what exists. It’s sane to use Linux in my project even though I don’t control that. I suppose it’s also sane to use Windows even though I don’t control that.
  - godDLL 5y ago
    So you just leave Windows update on in production? Brave man.
    - prepend 5y ago
      Depending on something doesn’t mean crazy. I depend on lots of OSS projects (and windows), but I have a management system where I control what gets updated and when.
      - godDLL 5y ago
        You control what gets updated and when. There we are.

bdcravens 5y ago

Of course he acknowledged his reality: "they can legally copy your Intellectual Property" But let's be honest - if they hadn't copied his, they could have easily used the Ruby or Perl version. All he did was port a previous library.

A4ET8a8uTh0 5y ago

His twitter page complaining that his github got locked-up suggests he cares. I am not unsympathetic, but only because, I am starting to see this more as an effort to undermine open source as a movement/cause.

glenneroo 5y ago
Then again he seems quite proud of getting banned from Github in 2013 for "creating a script that forced people to watch a library that [he] created": https://youtu.be/varf6oWaFtU?t=202 https://youtu.be/varf6oWaFtU?t=202