6 ms·

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.

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.