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

191–195 of 195 posts

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

#191

Post by abofh »

dang wrote: post #160
abofh wrote: post #104

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And ionic is now on the list of "companies that operate at the whim of one person and should not be relied on for revenue" Harder to fit in your business card, I'm sure, but hey, you've earned it!

Please don't cross into personal attack. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

I appreciate the sentiment, but whose person was attacked here?

I asserted that as an investor, if a company is largely ran as a single person's whims, it becomes indistinguishable and unusable as a revenue producing entity.

I would invest in neither the person who thinks they're a company nor a company that thinks they're a person - neither were attacked, I simply said they wouldn't ever get a dollar.

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

#192

Post by jscheel »

abofh wrote: post #118
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.

Yeah, it actually does matter. Intent is incredibly important in law.

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

#193

Post by y4mi »

vertex-four wrote: post #190
y4mi wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Afaik, the MIT licence grants you the freedom to do whatever you want with this code. This code is written to share revenue with the author after a threshold, but that's merely the application/code working as intended. You're free to fork the code, remove this sharing and republish the dependency under another name for example, that's the only thing that MIT is about

The argument in this thread is that you can’t, and you agreed to the other License Agreement. See the root comment, which thinks that this code is not under the MIT license.

And as I said: a feature like this is entirely possible with the MIT licence, because it only addresses the licenced source code, not what said code actually does at runtime. Just read the licence yourself, it's exceptionally short.

------

Copyright (c)

Permission is hereby granted, free of charge, to any person obtaining a copy of this software and associated documentation files (the "Software"), to deal in the Software without restriction, including without limitation the rights to use, copy, modify, merge, publish, distribute, sublicense, and/or sell copies of the Software, and to permit persons to whom the Software is furnished to do so, subject to the following conditions:

The above copyright notice and this permission notice shall be included in all copies or substantial portions of the Software.

THE SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED "AS IS", WITHOUT WARRANTY OF ANY KIND, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO THE WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY, FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE AND NONINFRINGEMENT. IN NO EVENT SHALL THE AUTHORS OR COPYRIGHT HOLDERS BE LIABLE FOR ANY CLAIM, DAMAGES OR OTHER LIABILITY, WHETHER IN AN ACTION OF CONTRACT, TORT OR OTHERWISE, ARISING FROM, OUT OF OR IN CONNECTION WITH THE SOFTWARE OR THE USE OR OTHER DEALINGS IN THE SOFTWARE.

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

#194

Post by dang »

abofh wrote: post #191
dang wrote: post #160

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Please don't cross into personal attack. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

I appreciate the sentiment, but whose person was attacked here? I asserted that as an investor, if a company is largely ran as a single person's whims, it becomes indistinguishable and unusable as a revenue producing entity. I would invest in neither the person who thinks they're a company nor a company that thinks they're a person - neither were attacked, I simply said they wouldn't ever get a dollar.

Your comment was personal because it used "you" while talking to a person, and the snark in it was definitely crossing into attack.

If you wouldn't mind reviewing https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and taking the intended spirit of the site more to heart, we'd be grateful. The snark thing is particularly a marker of bad comments here.

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

#195

Post by netr0ute »

Aldo_MX wrote: post #181
jtbayly wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

He was paying for it. 2%. Then the open source hero started taking 30%. Without warning or disclosure. Defending this is a great way to trash the reputation of open source.

The reputation of open source is already trashed. Companies like Amazon abused what started as a passion for many people, and that passion is now costing them their wellbeing so they're revolting. The real open source belongs inside the GPL bubble, where you are legally obligated to share back, and it was battle tested when closed platforms like iOS gained traction. Did people help pressure Apple to make licenses lik…

> abused what started as a passion for many people

Maybe for some, but having a project used and sold by Amazon would be the endgame for me.

Post reply on HN