9 ms·

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 woul

by teddyh 5y ago

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, too, to be “stealing”. Regarding the increase from 2% to 30%, that is way more questionable, and I do not defend it.

libeclipse 5y ago
The GitHub page said it would take 2% but actually took 30%. How is that "exactly as it says it would"?
- teddyh 5y ago
  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.
  - op00to 5y ago
    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.
    - teddyh 5y ago
      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.
      - InsomniacL 5y ago
        https://github.com/floatinghotpot/cordova-admob-pro/blob/master/LICENSE https://github.com/floatinghotpot/cordova-admob-pro/blob/mas... > Permission is hereby granted, free of charge, to any person obtaining a copy of this software and associated documentation files
        colejohnson66 5y ago
        The code being free does not mean usage is free. Qt’s code is free to look at, but you still need to pay them for certain things. Licenses apply to the code, not what it does.
        InsomniacL 5y ago
        Firstly, I was addressing the claim in the comment I replied to that it's not open source. It's licenced under MIT That's not what the licence states at all... > Permission is hereby granted, free of charge, to any person ... including without limitation the rights to use .. copies of the Software. The licence states Permission is granted free of charge to use the software, if the software is charging then that's a breach of the licence..?
        abofh 5y ago
        They used the software, it did what it was programmed to do. The breach seems entirely on the licensee
    - ipaddr 5y ago
      This is used for popular game engines. It's not a bad model. If you make nothing you pay nothing if you profit you pay a %. It removes the need to buy upfront.
  - tobltobs 5y ago
    Could you please hint us to the sentence where he calls the 2% “stealing”, too? 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.
    - labcomputer 5y ago
      > What is "questionable" about that? Maybe that is not stealing but it is an obvious fraud. The plugin author claims that the ramp-up to 30% is an anti-abuse measure. Supposedly, something triggered the abuse abuse flag and the rev-share ramped up as a "get in touch with us" signal, with the additional rev-share refunded when the user does get in touch. Taken at face value, I think that's not unreasonable, though the lack of logging from the plug-in author's side is questionable (asking the customer how much they wanted refunded). Where I think the jury is out is whether that is actually what happened, or whether the plug-in just ramps up every customer to see what their pain tolerance is.
pavel_lishin 5y ago
That's incorrect. The license stated he would share 2% of the ad traffic, but it looks like the plugin was taking 100%.
- teddyh 5y ago
  100%? I can only see references to 30% at most. Which is questionable, since the license only specifies 2%. But not 100%.
Deukhoofd 5y ago
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 all, instead, share 2 percent ad traffic, so that we can both benefit and cover our cost to maintain and enhance this project.
- teddyh 5y ago
  > 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.)
  - PeterisP 5y ago
    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.
    - teddyh 5y ago
      Maybe. That’s a very… programmer-like way of looking at licenses, though, and it’s not necessarily compatible with how licenses are interpreted by judges.
    - nerdponx 5y ago
      The MIT license also clearly states that the software comes with NO WARRANTY (in all caps) and that you use it at your own risk. I don't see what the MIT license has to do with this at all.
    - abofh 5y ago
PeterisP 5y ago
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 offers (e.g. that MIT license in the LICENSE.txt) are made. 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.
- joshstrange 5y ago
  If you want to use the "Free and Open Source, no support" you also have to: > 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 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".
  - PeterisP 5y ago
    AdMob Pro has the exact same license (https://github.com/floatinghotpot/cordova-admob-pro/blob/master/LICENSE https://github.com/floatinghotpot/cordova-admob-pro/blob/mas...) and I see no reason whatsoever why someone using a product named "AdMob Pro" would be unable to use it as free and open source without support, certainly the name of the product does not influence that. The author has written their license poorly in a stupid manner that allows everyone to use their product for free - that's why lawyers are useful and why for small developers it's a very good recommendation to use one of standard licenses instead of trying to write their own from scratch. As of now, perhaps due to the author's legal incompetence, the license also allows free usage for commercial purposes.
    - joshstrange 5y ago
      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.
mox1 5y ago
Yea, he is not the first to discover this. I ran into this exact issue (same github repo and software package), back in ~2013. In my case, this revenue sharing was quietly introduced during the plugin update. 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.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
Kvirkvelia 5y ago
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
- javajosh 5y ago
  I think it also speaks highly of you that you engaged with him, signed your name, and made rational arguments. These are not the actions of a thief, but of someone who has thought about their business model and is willing to stand by it. That said, if you really wanted to impress, you'd improve the visibility of your practices for each individual developer, by providing a dashboard that fully discloses revenue-over-time, along with proactive notifications when your terms change. The MVP here would be a single email sent when the 2% term changes. This business model where the providing party retains the right to change terms arbitrarily has always concerned me, in the same way something like an indentured servitude contract would, and yet they are all too common. But its everywhere, and no self-interested business would take steps to reduce it's power against the counter-party. There is a whole set of problems here that neo-liberal capitalism not only cannot solve, but actually seem to make worse. It's easy to point the finger at a single dev, or a small team, and say "you're unethical!" but in truth I think the statement is more informed by the ability to identify the actor than the action itself, which is endemic. (To take two examples: variable rate mortgages, and credit card debt, neither of which are modeled by consumers and both of which are certainly gamed by the counter-party.)
  - pdpi 5y ago
    FYI, you're responding to the author of the article, not the author of the plugin :)
    - abofh 5y ago
      We're super glad to have saved you from almost paying a developer
pawelmurias 5y ago
They actually have MIT LICENSE file in the offending plugin repo.
- abofh 5y ago
  Were you charged to download or use it?

by teddyh 5y ago

libeclipse 5y ago

The GitHub page said it would take 2% but actually took 30%. How is that "exactly as it says it would"?

teddyh 5y ago
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.
- op00to 5y ago
  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.
  - teddyh 5y ago
    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.
    - InsomniacL 5y ago
      https://github.com/floatinghotpot/cordova-admob-pro/blob/master/LICENSE https://github.com/floatinghotpot/cordova-admob-pro/blob/mas... > Permission is hereby granted, free of charge, to any person obtaining a copy of this software and associated documentation files
      - colejohnson66 5y ago
        The code being free does not mean usage is free. Qt’s code is free to look at, but you still need to pay them for certain things. Licenses apply to the code, not what it does.
        InsomniacL 5y ago
        Firstly, I was addressing the claim in the comment I replied to that it's not open source. It's licenced under MIT That's not what the licence states at all... > Permission is hereby granted, free of charge, to any person ... including without limitation the rights to use .. copies of the Software. The licence states Permission is granted free of charge to use the software, if the software is charging then that's a breach of the licence..?
        abofh 5y ago
        They used the software, it did what it was programmed to do. The breach seems entirely on the licensee
  - ipaddr 5y ago
    This is used for popular game engines. It's not a bad model. If you make nothing you pay nothing if you profit you pay a %. It removes the need to buy upfront.
- tobltobs 5y ago
  Could you please hint us to the sentence where he calls the 2% “stealing”, too? 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.
  - labcomputer 5y ago
    > What is "questionable" about that? Maybe that is not stealing but it is an obvious fraud. The plugin author claims that the ramp-up to 30% is an anti-abuse measure. Supposedly, something triggered the abuse abuse flag and the rev-share ramped up as a "get in touch with us" signal, with the additional rev-share refunded when the user does get in touch. Taken at face value, I think that's not unreasonable, though the lack of logging from the plug-in author's side is questionable (asking the customer how much they wanted refunded). Where I think the jury is out is whether that is actually what happened, or whether the plug-in just ramps up every customer to see what their pain tolerance is.

pavel_lishin 5y ago

That's incorrect. The license stated he would share 2% of the ad traffic, but it looks like the plugin was taking 100%.

teddyh 5y ago
100%? I can only see references to 30% at most. Which is questionable, since the license only specifies 2%. But not 100%.

Deukhoofd 5y ago

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 all, instead, share 2 percent ad traffic, so that we can both benefit and cover our cost to maintain and enhance this project.

teddyh 5y ago
> 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.)
- PeterisP 5y ago
  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.
  - teddyh 5y ago
    Maybe. That’s a very… programmer-like way of looking at licenses, though, and it’s not necessarily compatible with how licenses are interpreted by judges.
  - nerdponx 5y ago
    The MIT license also clearly states that the software comes with NO WARRANTY (in all caps) and that you use it at your own risk. I don't see what the MIT license has to do with this at all.
  - abofh 5y ago

PeterisP 5y ago

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 offers (e.g. that MIT license in the LICENSE.txt) are made. 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.

joshstrange 5y ago
If you want to use the "Free and Open Source, no support" you also have to: > 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 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".
- PeterisP 5y ago
  AdMob Pro has the exact same license (https://github.com/floatinghotpot/cordova-admob-pro/blob/master/LICENSE https://github.com/floatinghotpot/cordova-admob-pro/blob/mas...) and I see no reason whatsoever why someone using a product named "AdMob Pro" would be unable to use it as free and open source without support, certainly the name of the product does not influence that. The author has written their license poorly in a stupid manner that allows everyone to use their product for free - that's why lawyers are useful and why for small developers it's a very good recommendation to use one of standard licenses instead of trying to write their own from scratch. As of now, perhaps due to the author's legal incompetence, the license also allows free usage for commercial purposes.
  - joshstrange 5y ago
    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.

mox1 5y ago

Yea, he is not the first to discover this. I ran into this exact issue (same github repo and software package), back in ~2013. In my case, this revenue sharing was quietly introduced during the plugin update. 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.

deleted 5y ago
[deleted]

Kvirkvelia 5y ago

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

javajosh 5y ago
I think it also speaks highly of you that you engaged with him, signed your name, and made rational arguments. These are not the actions of a thief, but of someone who has thought about their business model and is willing to stand by it. That said, if you really wanted to impress, you'd improve the visibility of your practices for each individual developer, by providing a dashboard that fully discloses revenue-over-time, along with proactive notifications when your terms change. The MVP here would be a single email sent when the 2% term changes. This business model where the providing party retains the right to change terms arbitrarily has always concerned me, in the same way something like an indentured servitude contract would, and yet they are all too common. But its everywhere, and no self-interested business would take steps to reduce it's power against the counter-party. There is a whole set of problems here that neo-liberal capitalism not only cannot solve, but actually seem to make worse. It's easy to point the finger at a single dev, or a small team, and say "you're unethical!" but in truth I think the statement is more informed by the ability to identify the actor than the action itself, which is endemic. (To take two examples: variable rate mortgages, and credit card debt, neither of which are modeled by consumers and both of which are certainly gamed by the counter-party.)
- pdpi 5y ago
  FYI, you're responding to the author of the article, not the author of the plugin :)
  - abofh 5y ago
    We're super glad to have saved you from almost paying a developer

pawelmurias 5y ago

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

abofh 5y ago
Were you charged to download or use it?