News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
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.