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.
> 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.
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.
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.
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.
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.