6 ms·

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 dow

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
  - javajosh 5y ago
    Oh, ha. Well, maybe that's even better as I don't think the OP appreciates how unusual it is to have someone take actual responsibility for their decisions, whether or not you agree with them.
- abofh 5y ago
  Who authorized the code to run?
simlevesque 5y ago
You using the software without a paid license was theft.
- kevingadd 5y ago
  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.
  - abofh 5y ago
    You buying software with a revshare agreement 100% does.. You operate in the us? You pay the irs. You operate in Brazil, you pay them. The price was disclosed, optional and entered into freely. Dude is buying his lawyer a boat if he wants to fight it.
    - ceejayoz 5y ago
      The revshare agreement was for 2%, not 30%. The 30% was not disclosed and applied unilaterally. Per the email exchange: > "After check, we find your app in the black list, and a random higher rate will be applied. Usually when a guy is using a fake license key, or send unusual attacking request...
  - MrWiffles 5y ago
    Not arguing here at all because I agree with you in principle, but I wanted to point out for the sake of consideration trust it appears the plug-in author was in Russia if I’m not mistaken. I have no idea how Russian law works with regard to this, but I think it’s somewhat unfair for us to jump to the conclusion that their courts are acting like ours; for all we (I?) know, IP law for software may not be enforceable in Russia. Or it could be dark pattern gated behind high court fees, unattainable representation, etc.
- 5y ago

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
- javajosh 5y ago
  Oh, ha. Well, maybe that's even better as I don't think the OP appreciates how unusual it is to have someone take actual responsibility for their decisions, whether or not you agree with them.
abofh 5y ago
Who authorized the code to run?

simlevesque 5y ago

You using the software without a paid license was theft.

kevingadd 5y ago
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.
- abofh 5y ago
  You buying software with a revshare agreement 100% does.. You operate in the us? You pay the irs. You operate in Brazil, you pay them. The price was disclosed, optional and entered into freely. Dude is buying his lawyer a boat if he wants to fight it.
  - ceejayoz 5y ago
    The revshare agreement was for 2%, not 30%. The 30% was not disclosed and applied unilaterally. Per the email exchange: > "After check, we find your app in the black list, and a random higher rate will be applied. Usually when a guy is using a fake license key, or send unusual attacking request...
- MrWiffles 5y ago
  Not arguing here at all because I agree with you in principle, but I wanted to point out for the sake of consideration trust it appears the plug-in author was in Russia if I’m not mistaken. I have no idea how Russian law works with regard to this, but I think it’s somewhat unfair for us to jump to the conclusion that their courts are acting like ours; for all we (I?) know, IP law for software may not be enforceable in Russia. Or it could be dark pattern gated behind high court fees, unattainable representation, etc.
5y ago