5 ms·

You write a lot of words to explain how the maintainer could justify his malice. At the end of the day it's still done out of malice, though. Unless he's gone

You write a lot of words to explain how the maintainer could justify his malice. At the end of the day it's still done out of malice, though. Unless he's gone absolutely bonkers, he's doing this to intentionally cause damage. The reason for it does not matter, as the definition you posted helpfully points out.

no_wizard 5y ago
Is it though? Was it malice when maintainers started adding those posinstall scripts asking for funding? which lead directly to the creation of `npm fund`, for instance. Was that also malice? Given all the evidence we have - I think its murky. That's my point, at the end of the day. Arguably, I could say that making millions of dollars off an open source library and not contributing back is malice - yet that argument is rarely given the same open and shut approval. Mind you, this is bigger, IMO, than `faker.js`, this raises questions around open source software as a whole, that are relevant in this case and beyond There's nuance in this conversation that is missing so far.
- FunHearing3443 5y ago
  I keep seeing this comment that companies are making their millions 'off of open source libraries' and it's a catchy phrase but let's be real the big companies that are using faker JS are making an insignificant amount extra by using that library, there are alternatives to mock data, etc. A key feature of MIT style licenses is that you can do whatever the hell you want with it for free, use a more restrictive license if you don't want people making a bunch of money off your code. I feel bad for this maintainer but a good takeaway is probably to not do a bunch of work for free unless you see a path to income down the road from it.
  - watwut 5y ago
    It is actively anti open source argument. It makes limited sense in subculture where contributing to open source is expected, but that subculture is absurdly small and answer to it is "this absolutely should not be mandatory". In any other context, it is argument against open source existing.
- acdha 5y ago
  > Was it malice when maintainers started adding those posinstall scripts asking for funding? which lead directly to the creation of `npm fund`, for instance. Was that also malice? No, because that did not impair use of those libraries whereas this change deliberately broke every program written by someone who trusted him and used his code under the social contract he offered. Open source maintainer funding and burnout are real problems but betrayal won't make things better. Imagine if you lived in a house with a bunch of roommates who weren't doing their share of the housework — you're entirely within your rights to stop volunteering to clean the toilet but it's crossing a line if you instead modify it to flush up.
  - runarberg 5y ago
    What is being described here is a prototypical case of industrial sabotage. Books have been written about it, the jury is very much not out on whether we should consider it malicious, although I very much consider it not... In fact industrial sabotage is quite often made out of love for the fellow worker. This is very much a philosophical question and I doubt we will resolve it here on HN. However if you want to deem this act malicious I beg you to ask your self: To whom is the malice directed towards, who was harmed the most? What does this act tell us about the industry? I, on the other hand, see this sabotage as a clear act of love from a fellow worker.
    - acdha 5y ago
      Sabotage is still malicious even if you sympathize with the motivations. I would also strongly question any “fellow worker” explanation since I'm sure the pain will almost universally be felt by the “fellow workers” who have to update things, reassure their security team, or increasingly start justifying their use of open source software.
      - runarberg 5y ago
        As is usually the case in most direct action. Your average strike will cause much further harm then this act for other workers. However the goal is not to halt production, halting production is simply a means to an end, the goal is usually better working conditions for the rest of the workers. This is why you often see workers stand in solidarity with strikers even when the strike directly harms them.
- MattPalmer1086 5y ago
  If you publish your code under a license that says anyone can use it for free and don't have to contribute, don't act all hurt when people and companies do just what you said they could. If you want to get paid, or you require contribution, use an appropriate license. It's not hard.

no_wizard 5y ago

Is it though? Was it malice when maintainers started adding those posinstall scripts asking for funding? which lead directly to the creation of `npm fund`, for instance. Was that also malice? Given all the evidence we have - I think its murky. That's my point, at the end of the day. Arguably, I could say that making millions of dollars off an open source library and not contributing back is malice - yet that argument is rarely given the same open and shut approval. Mind you, this is bigger, IMO, than `faker.js`, this raises questions around open source software as a whole, that are relevant in this case and beyond There's nuance in this conversation that is missing so far.

FunHearing3443 5y ago
I keep seeing this comment that companies are making their millions 'off of open source libraries' and it's a catchy phrase but let's be real the big companies that are using faker JS are making an insignificant amount extra by using that library, there are alternatives to mock data, etc. A key feature of MIT style licenses is that you can do whatever the hell you want with it for free, use a more restrictive license if you don't want people making a bunch of money off your code. I feel bad for this maintainer but a good takeaway is probably to not do a bunch of work for free unless you see a path to income down the road from it.
- watwut 5y ago
  It is actively anti open source argument. It makes limited sense in subculture where contributing to open source is expected, but that subculture is absurdly small and answer to it is "this absolutely should not be mandatory". In any other context, it is argument against open source existing.
acdha 5y ago
> Was it malice when maintainers started adding those posinstall scripts asking for funding? which lead directly to the creation of `npm fund`, for instance. Was that also malice? No, because that did not impair use of those libraries whereas this change deliberately broke every program written by someone who trusted him and used his code under the social contract he offered. Open source maintainer funding and burnout are real problems but betrayal won't make things better. Imagine if you lived in a house with a bunch of roommates who weren't doing their share of the housework — you're entirely within your rights to stop volunteering to clean the toilet but it's crossing a line if you instead modify it to flush up.
- runarberg 5y ago
  What is being described here is a prototypical case of industrial sabotage. Books have been written about it, the jury is very much not out on whether we should consider it malicious, although I very much consider it not... In fact industrial sabotage is quite often made out of love for the fellow worker. This is very much a philosophical question and I doubt we will resolve it here on HN. However if you want to deem this act malicious I beg you to ask your self: To whom is the malice directed towards, who was harmed the most? What does this act tell us about the industry? I, on the other hand, see this sabotage as a clear act of love from a fellow worker.
  - acdha 5y ago
    Sabotage is still malicious even if you sympathize with the motivations. I would also strongly question any “fellow worker” explanation since I'm sure the pain will almost universally be felt by the “fellow workers” who have to update things, reassure their security team, or increasingly start justifying their use of open source software.
    - runarberg 5y ago
      As is usually the case in most direct action. Your average strike will cause much further harm then this act for other workers. However the goal is not to halt production, halting production is simply a means to an end, the goal is usually better working conditions for the rest of the workers. This is why you often see workers stand in solidarity with strikers even when the strike directly harms them.
MattPalmer1086 5y ago
If you publish your code under a license that says anyone can use it for free and don't have to contribute, don't act all hurt when people and companies do just what you said they could. If you want to get paid, or you require contribution, use an appropriate license. It's not hard.