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

91–100 of 195 posts

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

#91

Post by simlevesque »

Kvirkvelia wrote: post #68
teddyh wrote: post #4

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…

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.

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

#92

Post by nerdawson »

liveoneggs wrote: post #53
Deukhoofd wrote: post #20

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…

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 under an MIT license makes their statement invalid. Why would I be "required to get a license" and offered a couple of commercial options? It sounds like they need to get some legal help to properly license the project in the way they want to.

Furthermore, pricing should be clear. It's deceptive to hide it within their so-called "license" section. As a developer, why would I read the license section if it's clearly marked within GitHub as being licensed under MIT and has a LICENSE file confirming that?

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

#93

Post by pawelmurias »

teddyh wrote: post #4

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…

They actually have MIT LICENSE file in the offending plugin repo.

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

#94

Post by kevingadd »

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.

Someone committing a license violation does not magically grant you the ability to steal 30% of their revenue. If you want to punish the license violation, take them to court.

Also note that the software is MIT licensed. Tucking some random additional clauses on your website or somewhere else doesn't magically change the licensing, if you don't want to use MIT (and make them free to use it) then don't use MIT.

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

#95

Post by kevingadd »

Hasz wrote: post #82

Ha, caveat emptor. Oh, wait, OP isn’t even a buyer and paid nothing for the code and blindly built it into the app. No reading, no understanding, just copying. OG plug-in author has a problem with people abusing license key system, builds in code to detect it. Disclaims it vaguely, OP gets bitten and has the gall to call it stealing. Author offers to help OP out, OP puts him on blast. Zero sympathy, even at 30%.

What part of this license says they owe 30% and don't have the right to just use the software? https://github.com/floatinghotpot/cordova-admob-pro/blob/mas...

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

#96

Post by kevingadd »

NKosmatos wrote: post #11
ceejayoz wrote: post #3

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The plugin guy can afford to be reasonable-ish. It reduces the likelihood of the scam being publicly disclosed, and I'd wager that 99% of people never notice the plugin is doing this.

Oh come on, it's not a scam and he's not stealing anything. It's clearly mentioned on the license and it's up to the users to go through it (like any other open-source plugin or software they use). At the end of the day the plugin creator was polite, understanding and returned money back even though he was not obliged to do so. It's a win-win situation as they clearly describe it, but the OP wasn't satisfied with the…

How is hiding 2% in your wiki (instead of in LICENSE where it belongs), and then taking 30% instead of 2%, not a scam? If someone listed a price of $2 for a burrito and then charged you $30 at the register, you would not consider that OK.

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

#98

Post by kevingadd »

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.

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

#99

Post by abofh »

PeterisP wrote: post #35
teddyh wrote: post #26

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.)

The point is that licenses and license offers are self-sufficient, a "clarification" from another document simply does not constitute a binding clause in a license. 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…

There is no indication that anyone was charged to use the software- it was the software that charged them

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

#100

Post by abofh »

pawelmurias wrote: post #93
teddyh wrote: post #4

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…

They actually have MIT LICENSE file in the offending plugin repo.

Were you charged to download or use it?
Post reply on HN