Comments by "" (@diadetediotedio6918) on "The crypto scam that almost ruined npm forever" video.

  1. I don't think having money incentives is "not open source by definition", there is nothing in the definition of open source that requires non-payments, the idea is "free as in free speech", not as in "free beer". But obviously dumb monetary incentives creates dumb spammers all around (and not only monetary incentives, there was this case of a bunch of indians being instructed by their teacher were posting all over github at a time). I think the moral is more: if you don't know what your incentives will create in thousands of unnocupied crazy guys or a bunch of freeloaders, don't do it.
    54
  2. ​ @KevinDay  Nop, you can also require payments for open source, this is also not against it <by definition>. You also don't need a license enforcing the paywall, this is a feature created artificially by proprietary software over the years. People will pirate your software no matter what you do, the question is just that you can sell and make money to those that wants to pay you for your job.
    5
  3. Oh, and I didn't heard anybody talking about the random chinese packages in npm with files with binary contents yet (derived from existing packages and misleading names), I perceived this months ago in some searchs for packages.
    3
  4. me as well, I perceived this like months before today hahahahaha
    2
  5. There are a bunch of chinese named and written strange packages as well in npm (with binary content in files)
    2