31–40 of 195 posts
*"Or else you might be unhappy someday."*
If that isn't a threat, I don't know what is. This guy's plugin should be removed immediately for such actions.
So he used code straight off GitHub, didn’t read the license terms, and then has the gall to call it “stealing” when the program does exactly as it says it would. Either learn to read licenses, or have a list of approved licenses (MIT, GPL, etc.) and only use software thus licensed. EDIT: What I mean above is the 2% which is specified in the “Licence Agreement” page – the article author is clearly considering this, t…
So I there's no reason for the licensor to assume that the commercial offer was chosen and that the licensee agreed to that 2% withholding, much less a 30% one.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Kindly reminder, do not use a fake license key or a license key from others, do not share your license key with others. Abuse of the license key may cause negative impact. [0] This is the closest it gets to calling out the the 30% but I agree, it should be clearer. [0] https://github.com/floatinghotpot/cordova-admob-pro/wiki/Lic...
It shouldn't be clearer - the plugin author should require an affirmative response from the developer that they accept those terms.
Ehh, I disagree. We all know developers would click through any terms without reading anyway and the onerous is on us to read the license before we integrate 3rd party code, which we rarely do. I see this as /just deserts/, a sort of hat tip and "well played sir". The 30% that is not mentioned is the sticking point, the 2% is absolutely reasonable and I might even say I'd think 30% is reasonable IF it had been called out in the license.
So he used code straight off GitHub, didn’t read the license terms, and then has the gall to call it “stealing” when the program does exactly as it says it would. Either learn to read licenses, or have a list of approved licenses (MIT, GPL, etc.) and only use software thus licensed. EDIT: What I mean above is the 2% which is specified in the “Licence Agreement” page – the article author is clearly considering this, t…
A technical reading of the license suggests that the licensee can choose one of three options, the first of which is "Free and Open Source, no support", which fits the OP needs and is also the one offered in the LICENSE.txt of the repository. Nothing in that license offer requires them to pick the second - "commercial" - option for commercial use as the other two options don't prohibit commercial use, and if other of…
> Fork the source code and maintain it yourself (bug fix, any future changes on Cordova and SDK, integration support, etc.); see the open source project here: https://github.com/floatinghotpot/cordova-plugin-admob
Which I think it's clear that's not what happened here, the blog author was using AdMob Pro and thus unable to qualify for "Free and Open Source, no support".
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The software license is MIT, but there's a page on their wiki that vaguely says they take a cut of your earnings over 1000$. It definitely does not mention 30% however: > 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 > Ship our code with yours to end-user, no need paying a cent at al…
> there's a page on their wiki that vaguely says A page titled “License Agreement”, clearly linked from the home page. (Regarding the 30%, I agree – this was questionable at best.)
If you have an offer of the MIT license from the author (as in the LICENSE.txt), then no clarifications or restrictions linked from the home page affect it, and other offers of other licenses are possible but not relevant if you like this particular offer.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
He called the 2% “stealing”, too. Sure, the slow increase to 30% was not documented, and I can see a good argument being made there.
The 2% is stealing because no reasonable person would expect to see such a clause in an open source software project. The 2% clause was hidden, all the way at the end of the doc. The plugin author is a conman.
I try my best to stay away from ad supported business models, if there is an app in the App Store for instance that has an in app purchase to turn off ads, I have no problem paying for it if it something I’m going to use.
So he used code straight off GitHub, didn’t read the license terms, and then has the gall to call it “stealing” when the program does exactly as it says it would. Either learn to read licenses, or have a list of approved licenses (MIT, GPL, etc.) and only use software thus licensed. EDIT: What I mean above is the 2% which is specified in the “Licence Agreement” page – the article author is clearly considering this, t…
So I just forked an older version of their code and ran from that. I also made a post telling the guy it was kinda shady, they didn't seem to care.
1) Create a nice plugin to serve ads
2) Bury a complex revenue sharing logic in the terms of use that nobody read anyway
3) Profit
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The software license is MIT, but there's a page on their wiki that vaguely says they take a cut of your earnings over 1000$. It definitely does not mention 30% however: > 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 > Ship our code with yours to end-user, no need paying a cent at al…
> there's a page on their wiki that vaguely says A page titled “License Agreement”, clearly linked from the home page. (Regarding the 30%, I agree – this was questionable at best.)
With the multiple contradictory statements, even just within the README, though, my company’s lawyer would say we can’t use this dependency at all if I showed it to them.