61–70 of 195 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
How is it a “scam” if the terms are clearly posted? EDIT: The percentage increase from 2% to 30% was not posted; I withdraw my opinion on that.
The terms are not clearly stated, the explicit LICENSE document https://github.com/floatinghotpot/cordova-admob-pro/blob/mas... offers a standard MIT license, unlike the wiki description.
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.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
Why do you call it Open Source? The plugin itself does not call itself Open Source, and clearly links to another project for those people who want an Open Source program.
> Permission is hereby granted, free of charge, to any person obtaining a copy of this software and associated documentation files
Author is typical parasite, uses open source projects and other people time and dare to say they are stealing. Read license agreement before usage.
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.
>If use in commercial project, please get a license, or, you have monetized more than $1000 using this plugin, you are also required to either get a commercial license ($20). As a commercial customer, you will be supported with high priority, via private email or even Skype chat.
Which is nigh illegible.
Does anyone know what happens when someone publishes conflicting licenses?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> 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.)
It is listed as MIT in the package.json, the LICENSE file, and the plugin.xml file. That’s more than reasonable enough to consider it MIT, and that’s where license information would be picked up by e.g. any license-scanning tools. 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.
However, blaming "e.g. any license-scanning tools" is not correct either, since that would be clearly a limitation of the license tool, encoding assumptions of location and standardization that are nothing more than convention. I mean this in the sense that if you went to court and your excuse was "my tool didn't pick that up", you would probably not be victorious, since the terms were laid out clearly for human consumption.
And I agree, a lawyer would not want to use this dependency, but it shouldn't take a lawyer to do that. You are responsible for the legal implications of using anyone else's software.
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…
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
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.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The GitHub page said it would take 2% but actually took 30%. How is that "exactly as it says it would"?
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.
You yourself say that "the increase from 2% to 30% is way more questionable". What is "questionable" about that? Maybe that is not stealing but it is an obvious fraud.
I really don't get what your motivation could be to defend that kind of shit.