Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by op00to 1608 days 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.
2 comments

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.
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

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.
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..?

They used the software, it did what it was programmed to do. The breach seems entirely on the licensee
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.