Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Faker.js is now a community controlled project

fakerjs.dev

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 357 posts

Re: Faker.js is now a community controlled project

#41

Post by shadowgovt »

zbrozek wrote: post #31
chillfox wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I get what you are saying, but I feel like this applies: Not your domain/site, not your corner of the internet.

Is domain enough? I doubt it. You probably also need your own server in your own rack in your own building with your own peering to other networks. Once you've done all of that, you can probably credibly keep your site up counter to corporate interests.

As a network, the internet will tend to favor the interests of large groups acting coherently. Sometimes we call those "corporations." But yes; control online is a two-way street because it's a communications network and it always takes at least two to communicate.

Re: Faker.js is now a community controlled project

#42

Post by dahdum »

young_unixer wrote: post #37
smt88 wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It doesn't feel like there was enough criticism against GitHub for their decision to ban the developer of faker/colors. HN, at least, had a ton of discussion on this[1]. People advocated both ways. > This was his own corner of the internet for him to publish his own personal projects. No, it wasn't. It was Github's corner of the internet and then it was Microsoft's. If he just wanted a place to publish his personal…

> By putting them on a social network, like Github, he is submitting to their whims. He doesn't have any legal right to stay on that site if they want to kick him off of it. Of course, legally speaking, Github can do whatever they want with their website, but we're not talking about the legal aspect. The developer community has put some trust on Github not to do whatever they want. It's an implicit, non-legal, non-en…

I trust GitHub more based on their actions in this case. They acted to prevent further attacks and gave him access back after it was mitigated.

Re: Faker.js is now a community controlled project

#44

Post by PragmaticPulp »

thrdbndndn wrote: post #36
PragmaticPulp wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> This new fakerjs isn't the old project, technically or practically speaking (technically being the important part here). No, it's definitely a continuation of the old project. Marak deleted the old project. It's now just a non-functional GitHub repo with a Readme that says "What really happened with Aaron Swartz?". Nobody would consider that to be more like the original fakerjs than this active fork that, literally…

That's the sponsors' decision to make. As I said, I have no issue if Open Collective just cancels these sponsorships. What I don't agree is to transfer its sponsors to an account that has zero relationship with original account.

> That's the sponsors' decision to make.

Marak's GitHub sponsors aren't changed. If people wanted to specifically sponsor Marak, they would have chosen to do it there. The Open Collective is very specifically about the project, not a specific person.

> What I don't agree is to transfer its sponsors to an account that has zero relationship with original account.

The current fakerjs has more of a relationships with the original code than what's in Marak's repo.

I don't see the issue. The Open Collective is specifically about sponsoring the project, which Marak clearly and publicly washed his hands of.

Again, they weren't sponsoring Marak. They were sponsoring the project. The project is still going.

Re: Faker.js is now a community controlled project

#45

Post by shadowgovt »

throwawayay02 wrote: post #18
afavour wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Serious question: why? What would you say those sponsors were sponsoring?

Quoted post unavailable.

Then how do you know they don't support automatic hassle-free transfer of the sponsorship?

Re: Faker.js is now a community controlled project

#47

Post by feupan »

scrollaway wrote: post #27
elia_is_me wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

your GitHub account is not yours but GitHub's property, they just do not claim that before they ban your account. All cloud services do the similar things.

This isn’t how it works at all. It’s not how copyright law works, it’s not how property law works, and it’s certainly not how cloud services work. What isn’t yours is your “right” to use the service.

Have you read the project’s license? That is literally how it works. It’s not even an original project by Marak, as it’s clearly shown in there.

The only fault here is cutting the owner out of the repo, but given the security breach it’s strange that he isn’t permanently banned at all.

And yeah, adding an infinite loop is a DoS attack.

> not how cloud services work.

Try placing a virus on S3 and let me know how that works out.

Re: Faker.js is now a community controlled project

#48

Post by young_unixer »

PragmaticPulp wrote: post #5
ognarb wrote: post #4

> After the funds were moved we were invited to become admins of the Faker collective. This meant that we retained the existing sponsors of the Faker collective who were paying for the continued maintenance of the project. I'm sorry but this feels wrong. The existing sponsors should have their subscriptions cancelled, instead of going to a new organization automatically.

Only sponsorships tied to the project itself will continue to be tied to the project. This move was sponsored by the co-maintainers of the project. Any sponsorships tied to marak's personal GitHub account were not changed, of course. This is also consistent with the original terms: > During the conversation with Ben, he went over the terms and conditions of the Open Collective with me. > Ben said that simply, "The fu…

> Only sponsorships tied to the project itself will continue to be tied to the project

Yeah, but the project is not actually the same anymore. The new project taking over the name and URL of the old project doesn't make it "the same" project.

Re: Faker.js is now a community controlled project

#49

Post by chaostheory »

kemitchell wrote: post #34

This strikes me as hyper-defensive exercise in wrapping the lib thick with every cheap trapping of "community" to hand. I suspect because of the Open Collective handover. In the end, this thing spits out strings. Does it need eight maintainers, only a few of whom had commits, in low double digits? Does it need its own GitHub org, Twitter account, and Google .dev domain? Addressing open pull requests could be good, bu…

Marak isn’t the only one who snapped, but he’s the only one to my knowledge who has introduced malicious commits to this code to purposely hurt other people’s projects. (Even Hans Reiser didn’t do that.) It seems that this might have been a precursor to Marak attempting to hurt people in real life

"Hospitalized Queens man charged with reckless endangerment after cops find bomb-making materials in his home"

https://www.nydailynews.com/new-york/nyc-crime/ny-queens-bom...

I’m not surprised with Marak’s behavior given his mental state. What surprises me is the amount of support he’s garnered for his actions with a lot of people on HN.

Re: Faker.js is now a community controlled project

#50

Post by [deleted] »

smt88 wrote: post #23
throwaway858 wrote: post #10

It doesn't feel like there was enough criticism against GitHub for their decision to ban the developer of faker/colors. This was his own corner of the internet for him to publish his own personal projects. I understand the decision for npm to take ownership of his packages, because npm is a community package repository owned by, and for, the community. All community package repositories have some sort of policy for p…

> It doesn't feel like there was enough criticism against GitHub for their decision to ban the developer of faker/colors. HN, at least, had a ton of discussion on this[1]. People advocated both ways. > This was his own corner of the internet for him to publish his own personal projects. No, it wasn't. It was Github's corner of the internet and then it was Microsoft's. If he just wanted a place to publish his personal…

[deleted]
Post reply on HN