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

51–60 of 357 posts

Re: Faker.js is now a community controlled project

#51

Post by ren_engineer »

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…

he did it to protest billion dollar tech companies making money off open source, which is Github's entire business model. His protest was an existential threat to them so of course they are going to crack down

Re: Faker.js is now a community controlled project

#53

Post by PragmaticPulp »

mbreese wrote: post #20
PragmaticPulp wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The terms of the funding are attached to the project, not a specific maintainer: > During the conversation with Ben, he went over the terms and conditions of the Open Collective with me. > Ben said that simply, "The funding is attached to the project, not the current maintainer." None of Marak's personal GitHub sponsors were changed (obviously). To be clear: Marak deleted the original project as part of his protest.…

Then you cancel the sponsorships to the project and notify the supporters. When the maintainer effectively cancels the project, this makes sense. But you don’t migrate supporters automatically over to a brand new project (even if it is the most stable fork of the original). > We came to the determination that users unfamiliar with the whole Faker situation wouldn't know that the repository's sponsorship links aren't…

> but you are relying on people (who were never aware of the switch and the new fork) being okay with this, without their consent.

Open Collective makes it clear that the sponsorship is for the project, not for a specific person.

It's not "without their consent". It's literally the terms of the Open Collective.

Re: Faker.js is now a community controlled project

#55

Post by encryptluks2 »

judge2020 wrote: post #35
PragmaticPulp wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It was a malicious act to the users of his project, sure. But how was it a malicious act to GitHub? You can't use GitHub to perform malicious acts, even if the victim isn't GitHub. GitHub isn't obligated to support anyone's malicious acts with their platform. > If DHH decided that Rails was contributing more harm to the world then good, and tried to remove it from GitHub, would GitHub lock his account and restore h…

Exactly - that really looks like malware. If the same sort of replacement happened with rails, I imagine the same course would happen there - but if there were some corresponding blog post or reasoning in the Readme, GitHub would leave it to the community to let the drama play out (maybe still investigating to see if the login was suspicious in any way).

No post body was provided.

Re: Faker.js is now a community controlled project

#56

Post by PragmaticPulp »

young_unixer wrote: post #48
PragmaticPulp wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> The new project taking over the name and URL of the old project doesn't make it "the same" project.

Do you really think the sponsors and the people using this code actually care that one person (of many contributors to the project) who wanted to break the project is no longer part of the project?

It's a technicality, but in practice nobody actually cares. If they wanted to sponsor Marak they would have done it through his Github sponsorships. If they wanted to sponsor Fakerjs, in whatever form it takes, they would choose the Open Collective and their associated terms that allow for exactly this scenario.

Re: Faker.js is now a community controlled project

#57

Post by torstenvl »

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…

No post body was provided.

Re: Faker.js is now a community controlled project

#58

Post by ricardobeat »

PragmaticPulp wrote: post #53
mbreese wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Then you cancel the sponsorships to the project and notify the supporters. When the maintainer effectively cancels the project, this makes sense. But you don’t migrate supporters automatically over to a brand new project (even if it is the most stable fork of the original). > We came to the determination that users unfamiliar with the whole Faker situation wouldn't know that the repository's sponsorship links aren't…

> but you are relying on people (who were never aware of the switch and the new fork) being okay with this, without their consent. Open Collective makes it clear that the sponsorship is for the project, not for a specific person. It's not "without their consent". It's literally the terms of the Open Collective.

Does it matter what Open Collective thinks if most people believe this is immoral?

Re: Faker.js is now a community controlled project

#59

Post by Aerroon »

goodoldneon wrote: post #22
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…

Freedom of speech doesn’t mean you can do whatever you want on someone else’s server. The project was hosted on GitHub, so GitHub can take significant action to protect the community. He can host his project elsewhere if he doesn’t agree with GitHub’s actions

What about somebody else's internet connection? If we apply the same logic to ISPs then the future of the internet would look quite bleak.

Re: Faker.js is now a community controlled project

#60

Post by encryptluks2 »

shadowgovt wrote: post #38
young_unixer wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

FWIW, GitHub's actions here have in no way damaged my trust in them. They interpreted a developer's attempt to harm the community via abuse of the trust the community had placed in him as damage and mitigated it in the short run. That's a value-add.

Value add in to who? It sounds like you believe open source developers owe something to someone which simply isn't the case. You should evaluate the license(s):

THE SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED "AS IS", WITHOUT WARRANTY OF ANY KIND, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO THE WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY, FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE AND NONINFRINGEMENT. IN NO EVENT SHALL THE AUTHORS OR COPYRIGHT HOLDERS BE LIABLE FOR ANY CLAIM, DAMAGES OR OTHER LIABILITY, WHETHER IN AN ACTION OF CONTRACT, TORT OR OTHERWISE, ARISING FROM, OUT OF OR IN CONNECTION WITH THE SOFTWARE OR THE USE OR OTHER DEALINGS IN THE SOFTWARE.

Post reply on HN