This is the problem with open source, anytime someone tries to submit a finished solution - someone will come out of the woodwork and blame them for not attributing enough. In this case the link exists, but it isn't in the favorable order.
The only thing they added was a dependency on a closed source 3rd party """cloud""" service. This is basically the open source equivalent to blog spam and should be rightfully put down.
And the post you're replying to isn't even trying to do that! Its just suggesting that hacker news would find more benefit out of the original repo over some closed source cloud bait made by an employee of said proprietary cloud service.
but im not doing that.
I'm going after open source projects that can make money (by building closed source infrastructure) taking other peoples open source projects and moneifying them into a new """open source""" project (where 99% of the meat is in closed source cloud infrastructure) as a way to piggy back off of the work of other people so that they can advertise on hacker news.
Like, if the repo actually added something substantial and new to the project, that would be one thing.
If this was an article that explained how to do the gluing/config work this github repo does, also, another thing. even if hosted/made by the cloud company. That at least appeals to the intellectual pursuit.
But this is just some config files.
Also, because acknowledging the project you built on top off recursively references other tools, there is no need to publish the whole tree. That exploration is left as an exercise to the viewer of the repo.
And likewise, automatically distributing money per dependency will just make people split projects into multiple parts to get more of the money, or to add fake dependencies.
Donations need humans in the loop to decide where the money should go.
The automatic parts can consist of listing candidates, link to their contributions and handling of the transactions, not selection.
People do stupid shit for fake internet points and fame already, I wouldn't put cash into that equation