Monetizing open-source is problematic

Re:Monetizing open-source is problematic by no_wizard on Sunday May 23, 2021 @12:03AM (#27252354)

To be clear they’re violating the terms of service of fakercloud.com is the implication I took from this

Not so much an issue with them using faker.JS, though honestly companies should do more to pay for development of these kinds of libraries that they depend on, it isn’t the core issue here

Which by the way is a great service if you are in the market and would fully managed fake data api

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Monetizing open-source is problematic by oh_sigh on Sunday May 23, 2021 @12:20AM (#27252429)

Did they ever accept the fakercloud TOS?

If faker.js, an open source library, creates links to fakercloud.com - a for-profit offering, then someone who is merely using faker.js isn't falling afoul of the fakercloud.com TOS since they were never even presented with it in the first place.

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

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Monetizing open-source is problematic by bryan0 on Sunday May 23, 2021 @12:54AM (#27252550)

Yeah this explains it. Not a TOS prob then. You can’t complain when your software generates links to fakercloud.com by default.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Monetizing open-source is problematic by bryan0 on Sunday May 23, 2021 @12:16AM (#27252415)

I think they should make that clearer in the blog post because it really wasn’t clear to me. So they’re paying for fakercloud and providing that data to their customers? It seems like this would then be a TOS issue as you mentioned.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Monetizing open-source is problematic by adam_arthur on Sunday May 23, 2021 @12:12AM (#27252391)

Does it violate the TOS though? I didn't see that mentioned in the article.

But if so, then definitely a problem. They would then have a valid legal case against the company, I assume.

[ Parent | on HN ]