News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:Monetizing open-source is problematic by neximo64 on Saturday May 22, 2021 @11:24PM (#27252162)
It is MIT licensed so theres nothing wrong them reselling faker but the stuff theyre doing here looks quite dodgy.

I am a user of retool but for companies with access to your data you expect a bit of integrity. Would be really interested to know what retools response is.

You should follow up a couple of weeks from now on HN if nothing happens.

Re:Monetizing open-source is problematic by slver on Saturday May 22, 2021 @11:42PM (#27252249)
Using the faker CDN is dodgy and actually probably not legal.

But everything else is.

You don’t want startups using your IP? Don’t license it to them for free with no restrictions. Duh.

Re:Monetizing open-source is problematic by HideousKojima on Saturday May 22, 2021 @11:54PM (#27252315)
All of these stories in the last few months about big tech companies "abusing" open source software is straight out of /r/leopardsatemyface. "I want to build an open source project with a license that lets anyone use it any way they want for free! No, don't use it like that!"
Re:Monetizing open-source is problematic by slver on Sunday May 23, 2021 @12:06AM (#27252373)
FOSS is a cargo cult to many naive developers. They build useful tools, give them out, and expect millions of payout will happen somehow.
Re:Monetizing open-source is problematic by HideousKojima on Sunday May 23, 2021 @12:07AM (#27252376)
It's straight out of the South Park underpants gnome school of business:

1) Write open source code

2) ???

3) Profit

Re:Monetizing open-source is problematic by oh_sigh on Sunday May 23, 2021 @12:26AM (#27252464)
faker.js - the MIT licensed free software - generates links to fakercloud.com. The error is in faker.js creating links to a paid-service CDN, not in how Retool is using the MIT licensed software.

https://github.com/Marak/faker.js/blob/c9764abd20a198e318367...

Re:Monetizing open-source is problematic by amadvance on Sunday May 23, 2021 @01:42AM (#27252700)
The MIT license has a legal disclaimer, so the responsibility is not on the author of the software.
Re:Monetizing open-source is problematic by slver on Sunday May 23, 2021 @04:32AM (#27253334)
Ok so we have a business model:

1. Have paid service.

2. Have free MIT software that violates the TOS of your own paid service.

3. Comes along a company, uses your MIT software as is.

4. Whine for money, because your TOS is violated.

Re:Monetizing open-source is problematic by ncann on Saturday May 22, 2021 @11:42PM (#27252247)
I think the main problem is Retool is using the faker cloud api directly behind the scene (?) and the generated data is hosted on the faker cloud CDN (?).
Re:Monetizing open-source is problematic by slver on Sunday May 23, 2021 @04:56AM (#27253437)
It's not using the cloud API. All this logic is in Faker.js itself, and apparently Retool unwittingly lifted it with the rest.
Re:Monetizing open-source is problematic by Eikon on Saturday May 22, 2021 @11:45PM (#27252270)
But they are paying for it so what's the issue?
Re:Monetizing open-source is problematic by accountofme on Sunday May 23, 2021 @12:07AM (#27252375)
Copyright infringement?
Re:Monetizing open-source is problematic by HideousKojima on Sunday May 23, 2021 @12:09AM (#27252385)
It's MIT licensed. If they're actually reselling the API (and not hosting their own instance) then it could potentially be in violation of the terms of service, but that's it.

Using images from Faker's CDN is scummy and potentially illegal, but fairly minor overall.

Re:Monetizing open-source is problematic by accountofme on Tuesday May 25, 2021 @08:28AM (#27276010)
If you are using images that someone else createdbwithout permission or license that is copyright infringement. If you are also using data created from a service and use it in your product again without permission or license this is also copyright infringement.
Re:Monetizing open-source is problematic by reputet on Sunday May 23, 2021 @12:26AM (#27252458)
Yes, it's MIT and everybody else is allowed to use it as they want.

Would it be a good option to relicense the project under the AGPL/SSPL or whatever licenses (how MongoDB/Elastic/Anaconda have done) to get credit?

Re:Monetizing open-source is problematic by tiltrus on Saturday May 22, 2021 @11:46PM (#27252274)
I have been seeing a lot of Retool lately on my Facebook News feed.

What's amazing to me is that they're using his CDN. Does this company have such terrible code review that they forgot to use their own CDN? Definitely makes me think twice about the quality of Retool's software.

Re:Monetizing open-source is problematic by HideousKojima on Sunday May 23, 2021 @01:05AM (#27252581)
Looks like Faker has links to their CDN hardcoded in the source code:

https://github.com/Marak/faker.js/blob/c9764abd20a198e318367...

Still something Retool should have caught, but a poor choice on Marak's end too