None, but think of it in the context of time = money. Discussions about self hosting development environments will be filled with people claiming it's not worth the opportunity cost to spend the time setting up and maintaining anything yourself when you can pay $X per month and make it someone else's problem.

In the same context, how long does it take to write something like faker.js? I've never used it, but I see commits that are at least 6 years old and there are 200+ contributors. Is that 1000s of hours? I honestly don't know.

Let's say it's 1000 hours just for an example and that someone worth $100k / year could write it. At $50 / hour that's $50k if you have have to build it in house and you lose out on the value of having 200+ contributors that are familiar with part of the codebase plus tens of thousands of users exposing bugs and edge cases.

So IMHO when you have codebases like this the corporate donations should be in $10k increments.

I would never publish a line of code under the MIT license. It's great for companies that want to popularize their platforms (like Microsoft is doing), but it's terrible for small developers and you'll rarely get any value from those projects.

Almost every project I worked on had a shitty version of faker, written in half an hour for specific needs. It’s a very cosmetic thing, as you’d never rely on this type of dataset for testing actual behaviour of critical code.