Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

An ad plugin was stealing revenue for a year and I didn't even notice

kvirkvelia.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

111–120 of 195 posts

Re: An ad plugin was stealing revenue for a year and I didn't even notice

#111

Post by Kvirkvelia »

simlevesque wrote: post #91
Kvirkvelia wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Thank you for your comment! I don't think taking 2% is theft. Maybe it's a dark pattern, but it's definitely not theft. In the article, I say that I calmed down after explaining with 2%, which means my agreement with the situation. The way the increase to 30% is made and the number of users with such a percentage says that the author deliberately increases the percentage without warning the user, which is theft

You using the software without a paid license was theft.

The license clearly says: "You don't have to pay, we are also okay if just share 2 percent user traffic"

Re: An ad plugin was stealing revenue for a year and I didn't even notice

#112

Post by jmnicolas »

remram wrote: post #62
jmnicolas wrote: post #46

It's what's worrying with running WordPress plugins: you mean I'm downloading some PHP code written by somebody unknown and this code executes whatever it wants on my server???!!! It seems I'm the only one that is bothered by this. And no I don't at the time nor the skill to audit everything or to use a static site like Hugo.

Isn't that what WordPress is in the first place?

Absolutely, but it's still scary nonetheless! The problem is that there's not many viable alternative to WP.

Re: An ad plugin was stealing revenue for a year and I didn't even notice

#113

Post by drran »

nerdawson wrote: post #92
liveoneggs wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

MIT license does not disallow monetization or rev share. It does allow you to fork this plugin and remove the code responsible for rev share, etc. This is all above board.

From their license agreement: > If you have used this plugin for FREE but monetized more than $1000, you are also required to get a license, or share us some Ad traffic as stated in win-win partnership model below. https://github.com/floatinghotpot/cordova-admob-pro/wiki/Lic... The project however includes the following the license: https://github.com/floatinghotpot/cordova-admob-pro/blob/mas... Surely releasing code…

The author of software can release his work under any number of licenses, or none at all. An author can release the same code under MIT, Apache, GPL, MPL, or commercial license at the same time.

Re: An ad plugin was stealing revenue for a year and I didn't even notice

#114

Post by [deleted] »

kevingadd wrote: post #98
lewich wrote: post #55

Author is typical parasite, uses open source projects and other people time and dare to say they are stealing. Read license agreement before usage.

The repo's LICENSE is the MIT license. If you read it you would have no idea the project is going to steal 30% of your ad revenue.

[deleted]

Re: An ad plugin was stealing revenue for a year and I didn't even notice

#115

Post by jmnicolas »

csunbird wrote: post #56
jmnicolas wrote: post #46

It's what's worrying with running WordPress plugins: you mean I'm downloading some PHP code written by somebody unknown and this code executes whatever it wants on my server???!!! It seems I'm the only one that is bothered by this. And no I don't at the time nor the skill to audit everything or to use a static site like Hugo.

What is the difference between downloading a wordpress plugin and running it in your server and downloading a jar from maven/a js package from npm and running it?

I work with C#, most (all?) Nugget packages I download are open source, which isn't the case of a lot of WP plugins that are obfuscated.

They're also centrally managed by Microsoft, so if there was a problem with one package they could kick it out of the Nugget repo.

But in the end you're right, it's mostly a matter of trust and finger crossed.

Re: An ad plugin was stealing revenue for a year and I didn't even notice

#116

Post by abofh »

wizzwizz4 wrote: post #90
joshstrange wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You can use it for free, that doesn't mean it won't take a cut. I could write code under MIT that is a keylogger, it's free to use, doesn't meant there aren't other consequences. In fact MIT protects the creator from any of those consequences. Sure, based on the license, someone could fork AdMob Pro and remove the ad sharing but that's not what the blog author did.

> In fact MIT protects the creator from any of those consequences. Eh. For something like a keylogger, not really; there are laws against writing and distributing malicious software. In the UK, you can write malware for educational purposes, but woe betide those whose malware escapes or “escapes”: no MIT license disclaimer will save you.

Sudo Rm -rf /

Running that without a proper license may cause unexpected behavior, contact me to obtain a license.

If you are a licensed user, it will likely render your system inoperable.

What law did I just break?

Re: An ad plugin was stealing revenue for a year and I didn't even notice

#117

Post by JulianWasTaken »

Hasz wrote: post #101
deeviant wrote: post #88

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There is a huge divide between "oh hey you didn't read the license and missed the fact that this OS addon takes 2%" and "the license said 2%, but it's actually 30%, oops my friend!"

I see zero difference. There is an explicit mention that bad things will happen if you subvert the license system. A license is $20, OP is just too lazy to read the terms of code he blindly incorporates. Op called 2% stealing, 30% is for basically triggering the anti cheat. OP should have paid paid the license and read the rules.

What if someone is willing to pay 2% and not pay 30%? Do you think most people who are willing to pay more than 0% are willing to pay both numbers?

Or are you punishing OP simply because they didn't know there was 2% involved? If so you don't really see zero difference, you just are exacting some punishment.

Re: An ad plugin was stealing revenue for a year and I didn't even notice

#118

Post by abofh »

jscheel wrote: post #19

I'm confused, where in the license does it give them the permission to randomly assign an ad-share percentage? This seems highly suspect, and probably illegal in most jurisdictions. In fact, reading the actual license agreement here https://github.com/floatinghotpot/cordova-admob-pro/wiki/Lic... seems to suggest that they will stop serving ads, not randomly start increasing ad share.

Not a license issue: you ran the code. I can give you the software for free, if it makes transfers to my account, it doesn't matter if you pirates it.

Re: An ad plugin was stealing revenue for a year and I didn't even notice

#119

Post by nemothekid »

arthur6667 wrote: post #106

Based on the comments I should make a left-pad and put in a random file 'if you use this, you need to give me you house and first born child'. Because appearantly whatever you put down is legal and enforceable.. shm.. Taking reveneu without a contract smells like fraud to me.

IBM wouldn't touch JSLint because there was a clause that said JSLint couldn't be used for evil. Some people do their homework and others don't.

Re: An ad plugin was stealing revenue for a year and I didn't even notice

#120

Post by abofh »

contravariant wrote: post #65
jscheel wrote: post #19

I'm confused, where in the license does it give them the permission to randomly assign an ad-share percentage? This seems highly suspect, and probably illegal in most jurisdictions. In fact, reading the actual license agreement here https://github.com/floatinghotpot/cordova-admob-pro/wiki/Lic... seems to suggest that they will stop serving ads, not randomly start increasing ad share.

Yeah I'm not seeing it either. It's even weirder that the code itself is distributed with an MIT license, which suggests you're free to download and modify the code to disable the revenue sharing. This conflicts with some of their other statements though. In the readme they do outline the option to use it with a open source license (without any support), but they seem to contradict this in the following sentence in t…

You were free to give author money the moment you used his code, why are you worrying about the license - you can copy, modify and maintain a version that pays you.

You just have to, you know, work

Post reply on HN