[frankfrankfrank]

I feel there is a bigger issue here that I don't see anyone having brought up.

Blogging dev was too cheap to just pay $20 for a license for code that would generate him money. THAT is really the bigger issue here, regardless of everything else, including the fact that he was in violation of the agreement, i.e., >$1,000 MRR.

Here's a little pro tip for everyone, don't cheap out on paying someone $20 for the work they do, when it will be generating you significantly more income.

Frankly, regardless of whether or not the plugin dev is sketchy or not, the blogger dev violated the terms of the agreement and seems rather ungrateful that he was given back what he should not have even gotten back.

[floatingatoll]

“No one thinks anyone else deserves payment for creating good work, unless they’re the one who could be getting paid, in which case it’s a travesty that they’re not” is an ethical standpoint that’s widespread in Silicon Valley. For example, it’s why Facebook users don’t receive dividend payments for the investment of their harvested data. “We realized that we could profit from inattention|opensource, so of course that’s ethical, because Finders Keepers rules” is a bad look for both parties in this post — the plug-in author who takes a revenue share without providing a financial statement, and the site operator who can’t be bothered to pay $20 for a core revenue stream of their site.