Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

It must be the first time I see a developer licensing his code under the MIT or BSD and then being happy when he sees his code being used by someone else.


Oddly though there’s about 20 replies expecting developers of OSS code get a free Switch or some personal thank you from Nintendo.

I’d personally be satisfied contributing to the world of software so broadly. That’s why you do open source, making the worlds software better for everyone.

Monetizing something called ‘safe buffer’, or even to the point of pushing for a freebie and a thank you card on social media, seems silly to me (which I don't think OP was doing, only in the replies).

If it was some commercial license for a small Node library, which they had every right to choose, it would have probably died in obscurity anyway. And what good does that do the software world.

Meanwhile getting to say your code is used by Nintendo Switch on your resume, or bragging rights to your nephew or whomever, seems more than enough to me. Part of the hacker ethos.


> Meanwhile getting to say your code is used by Nintendo Switch on your resume

Yeah, that's immediately what my mind went to. If my code was used by someone as major as Nintendo, then I wouldn't be making a fuss. But you can bet that I would have 50 different ways to move that into a discussion during a job interview.

Yeah, sure it would be nice if people sent me free things because they're using my code. However, putting restrictions on my code or making a huge stink about it on social media sounds like a good way for people to not use my code.

If I wanted something back for sure in exchange for my code, then I would license it such that I'm going to get something back or setup some other contract. I thought that's how adulthood worked. If you want something in exchange for your work then you need to set it up ahead of time. If you want to give somebody something then you shouldn't expect anything back. You gave it.


> your code is used by Nintendo Switch on your resume

Great point. In the current market for devs, the expected value of that is probably worth ~$10,000's+.


Easily could be more if they specifically need his niche.

A switch is ultimately a mid spec Androidish tablet. I'd imagine embedded system manufacturers would really value him


I think you’re overestimating the package in question. It’s about 50 significant lines of code total:

https://github.com/feross/safe-buffer/blob/master/index.js

It’s a tiny API wrapper in JavaScript for older Node versions. While useful for someone on older Node, it doesn’t really say anything about the author’s embedded system chops.


It’s looks like it’s just a polyfill. Not to diminish the achievement, but you’re correct: it’s doesn’t reflect on his embedded skills (if they even exist).


kudos for doing the quick research into the actual topic and background of the situation at hand instead of soap-boxing about hypotheticals.

This should have been mentioned in the original post as it gives some much-needed perspective about the scale of the contribution.


Good point, I definitely didn't research his actual library.


Indeed, I also have had some problems in the past with 'hackathons' I attended which were heavily organized around competition prizes. There were obviously teams simply goal chasing for prizes. Which I felt the organizers pushed so hard for that it went against the 'spirit' of hackathons.

There's plenty of personal gain to be found being an OSS developer (especially in a group setting just outletting creatively with other talented people) without directly making the motivation prizes/money the end goal.

No one is against rewarding OSS developers as much as possible. I'm certainly not and think every successful company using OSS software, aka all of them, should have a wing donating to projects. But I am against watering it all down to some narrative of OSS developers somehow being exploited by commercial companies.


And Feross himself is a perfect example of one who is trying out different ways to be a full-time open source developer: https://feross.org/funding-experiment-recap/

Having companies and individuals supporting him: https://feross.org/thanks/

As well as offering actual support contracts: https://feross.org/support/


>Meanwhile getting to say your code is used by Nintendo Switch on your resume, or bragging rights to your nephew or whomever, seems more than enough to me. Part of the hacker ethos.

When I worked with some security folks and they'd get vulnerabilities and etc recognition was a big deal. The security researches (or hackers, whatever you wanted to call them) who reached out to us loved getting their name in release notes or wherever they could point to.

It made sense as it was legitimate recognition of some seriously helpful work. Cost the company nothing to put it in there and made some folks super happy.


On the one hand, I think that would be cool if Nintendo did that. On the other hand, that would (or, so I imagine, maybe people are better and I’m just a cynic) produce a giant outrage how Nintendo thinks that’s all their work is worth, so I don’t expect them to ever do that.


Yeah, if you're going to make something freely available, I don't understand the frustration when someone, even a lot of someones with money, decide to use it, for free.

If they start making demands for fixes, enhancements, etc., Then sure, by all means provide your $$$ rates, or encourage them to contribute to the project with their own programming time.


Well, they may have saved significantly more than $100 (or whatever a Switch costs) by having this software available. There certainly is precedent for compensating your open source contributors. When VA Linux had their IPO they granted options to buy 100 shares to their software contributors, which turned out to be worth tens of thousands of dollars. Red Hat had a similar program.


This appears to be the entirety of the code:

https://github.com/feross/safe-buffer/blob/master/index.js

It is 65 lines of Javascript that's mostly boilerplate. I doubt it saved them significantly more than the cost of manufacturing + shipping a Switch, or that they even used it directly. More likely this was just pulled in as an indirect dependency.


cool, so are you going to come work for my company for free? you can put it on your resume.


This is wrong.

As an adult living in a world with other adults, if I want to get paid for my work, then I'm going to setup that interaction ahead of time.

If I wanted to con people, then maybe I would put something of value out for anyone to take. Then once people take it, I would pressure them for something of value in return.

If I give out a gift and it makes someone want to give me a gift in return, then that's nice. But they aren't required to give me a gift. That's the whole point of giving a gift in the first place. It doesn't setup a compulsory need to reciprocate.


The point is, they offered a library with the MIT license, expecting money for it doesn't make sense.


When I release OSS code, I expect everyone to be able to use it, and I do it on my own schedule, based on my own interests. It's purely self-motivated.

Were I to write code for your company, I bet you wouldn't let me release the code to anyone else (I can see it in your little eyes) and you'd definitely demand to control what I write and how quickly. It's externally motivated. The external motivation I choose is money.


There's the "false equivalence" advocate who shows up with the same trite comment every time open source is discussed. Knew you'd be here eventually.


tsk tsk, it's called "paying in visibility" or "career-building opportunity".


It's a traditional economic model in the arts. Most musicians and photographers put shelter over their heads and fill their bellies with nothing but "exposure".


yeah, and we all know how well that has worked for them


It would not have cost Nintendo much money to ship a free Switch to each developer / organization - but you can guess that every single one would have tweeted about it.


This is a good point, but I think there are some unfortunate side effects. Once you give away free stuff because you used someone's (open sourced) code, now you have to get the PR people involved. In the future if your devs see some other open sourced code that they want to use, now instead of needing to get legal on board they also need to get PR on board.

"Oh, hm, well we don't really want to give away free consoles this time around. And if we don't then it will make us look bad because we did last time. So don't use that code."

As a dev, I don't really want to have to check with 50 other divisions in the company before I use some open sourced stuff. And then get denied because of some unrelated PR event is going on.


I generally agree with this school of thought. Acknowledgement whether necessary or not is just a nice gesture and it would be great if more companies did it with the open source code they are (presumably) using in line with the license.

But, as soon as you start paying, you have: 1.) All the other open source code they're presumably using possibly in more trivial ways and 2.) As soon as money enters the question it can become a matter of "My library probably saved Nintendo tens of thousands of dollars in development costs and all I got is this lousy console. No wonder people say open source development isn't sustainable." (Whether that was the case here or not.) It might have been a nice gesture but it could easily be taken the wrong way.


I'm in two minds about that, at first I thought exactly the same.

But then you might think, for some things anyway, Wait a minute, you're recognising the value you get out of it... and you're valuing it at only ~£300 (or whatever).

I think 'just trying to be nice' could back-fire.


Yes but that should be an organic thing from within Nintendo.

On the other hand pushing it hard so it becomes a 'thing' would leave a bad taste in my mouth. Although rewarding OSS is something every major company should strive for (In Nintendos case specifically I'd be personally be surprised given what I've heard about Japanese corporate culture, but I'm just speculating here).

But it is indeed a good marketing strategy, at least if the HR and marketing teams were even aware of such things (ie, people who have control of sending out freebies). Which is why having technical leadership throughout the company always helps. Ultimately it will come down to an organizational thing.


What companies like Nintendo should do is to sign up for OSS support services like https://www.tidelift.com/, and whether they have or haven’t we don’t know.

Sending out free consoles would just be a marketing gimmick, and could just as well backfire as “you can’t eat a console, do Nintendo really think consoles are the way to support open source maintainers?” etc


exactly, corporate altruism has so many ways of backfiring, your example is one great example. I can just imagine the sort of mental gymnastics Twitterers will find to be outraged at any x billion dollar company efforts to do low-tier outreach with freebies.

Just simply supporting OSS directly, as in real money, is more than enough to quiet these "they should give x freebie".

That is all the mob should be calling for as a standard practice. Not sending some random developer who happened to get popular on Twitter a nintendo.


That's because we all focus on the people who complain. The vast majority of open source developers actually understand their license choice and hold no grudge when their code gets used.

The response that people should "Use GPL" belies the reality that most companies and individuals avoid GPL libraries like the plague. A full GPL program is a different story of course.


This is exactly right. The vast majority of people who do open source work are like this guy: They know the deal up front and they’re happy to see their work being used exactly as they intended.

It’s not newsworthy, so we don’t talk about. We only see headlines when someone makes waves by trying to claim the deal was something other than giving the code away.


Really? I license my libraries (tiny as they are) under MIT, specifically so that they can be used by anyone, with no restrictions whatsoever. I am very happy to hear when they are getting used.


A friend of mine wrote a tool that I contributed a small portion to. We got a PR from a Facebook employee who had modified it to better report a certain thing for one of their internal build systems. It was a lovely day!

Honestly, it makes my day to get a PR. It means someone is using the thing :)


Daniel Stenberg, the developer of curl, has talked/written frequently of being proud of how ubiquitous curl is, and finding his name/email in everything from smartphones, cars, and Grand Theft Auto 5:

https://daniel.haxx.se/blog/2018/09/17/the-worlds-biggest-cu...


Maybe that's just some kind of selection bias in regard to publicity. A guy being happy usually generates less attentation than some widely agreed outrage.

I, for one, prefer to open-source my libraries under MIT and see it used rather than using some more restrictive license and having it never end up being used anywhere :). So add me to your list of people being happy their code gets used.


I believe the creator of minix was quite pleased to learn that it had been used in Intel ME, just to name another example.


Not really. Though he willingly helped Intel during development, he was not happy to learn it had been used to develop what he considered a spy engine. Kind of a niche area though, if they hadn't requested his assistance or used MINIX for a different project he would have been pleased.


Okay, so I went and looked up his "Open Letter to Intel" - https://www.cs.vu.nl/~ast/intel/ - and I get a kind of mixed message. He does say, as you note, "If I had suspected they might be building a spy engine, I certainly wouldn't have cooperated", but above that postscript, he says, "If nothing else, this bit of news reaffirms my view that the Berkeley license provides the maximum amount of freedom to potential users. If they want to publicize what they have done, fine. By all means, do so. If there are good reasons not to release the modfied code, that's fine with me, too." So I guess, "license is working as intended, but I don't like what you did with it"?


He seemed to dislike how they actively got his assistance to build a project he objects to, but doesn't have an issue with their use of his code.




Consider applying for YC's Fall 2025 batch! Applications are open till Aug 4

Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: