[Hasz]

I see zero difference. There is an explicit mention that bad things will happen if you subvert the license system. A license is $20, OP is just too lazy to read the terms of code he blindly incorporates.

Op called 2% stealing, 30% is for basically triggering the anti cheat. OP should have paid paid the license and read the rules.

[deeviant]

The author didn't at first didn't even notice the addon was taking a cut, let alone attempted to "cheat" it. That is clearly the author's "oops", but what are you getting on about "cheating?"

In the license, it clearly state that is perfectly acceptable to use the addon unlicensed, and if you go above a certain monetization level, it will take a cut. The explicitly calls out the cut as 2%. Except the license was a lie, it is not 2%, it's 30%. That is theft.

If the addon took 2%, as the license explicitly states, it would have been completely legal. It was not 2% and it is theft.

Is it really a good model for funding Open Source software to bake in clearly illegal landmines that steal from anybody using said OSS? If so, that feels way more like malware than OSS.

[JulianWasTaken]

What if someone is willing to pay 2% and not pay 30%? Do you think most people who are willing to pay more than 0% are willing to pay both numbers?

Or are you punishing OP simply because they didn't know there was 2% involved? If so you don't really see zero difference, you just are exacting some punishment.