[PeterisP]

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]

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

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]

AdMob Pro has the exact same 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]

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.

[wizzwizz4]

> In fact MIT protects the creator from any of those consequences.

Eh. For something like a keylogger, not really; there are laws against writing and distributing malicious software. In the UK, you can write malware for educational purposes, but woe betide those whose malware escapes or “escapes”: no MIT license disclaimer will save you.

[abofh]

Sudo Rm -rf /

Running that without a proper license may cause unexpected behavior, contact me to obtain a license.

If you are a licensed user, it will likely render your system inoperable.

What law did I just break?

[wizzwizz4]

Considering it's:

• short enough, and non-novel enough, not to count as a copyrightable work

• explicitly described as malicious in the accompanying documentation

• not viable for use in a cyberattack (since it can only be run once you've already won)

• doesn't actually work, due to a typo

you probably haven't broken any laws. But, again, I'm not a lawyer; please seek legal advice from an expert in the laws of your jurisdiction if you want an accurate answer.

[krageon]

> malicious software

Keyloggers don't have to be malicious (e.g. you can use it for a global hotkey hook). Thus, writing such software doesn't have to be done with that mindset at all. That being the case, it is ambiguous whether or not those laws apply.