https://github.com/floatinghotpot/cordova-admob-pro/wiki/Lic...
> 3. Win-win partnership
> And, if you don't have enough money yet to get a license, or don't have a PayPal account, here is another flexible option worth considering, no need to pay a cent. We may call it partnership.
> We maintain, support, and version update for any plugin issues, you don't worry about its update or bugfix, just use it for free, and focus on your app or game logic.
> Ship our code with yours to end-user, no need paying a cent at all, instead, share 2 percent ad traffic, so that we can both benefit and cover our cost to maintain and enhance this project.
The problem is the plugin author silently raised that "share 2 percent ad traffic" to 30%.
Also note that the software is MIT licensed. Tucking some random additional clauses on your website or somewhere else doesn't magically change the licensing, if you don't want to use MIT (and make them free to use it) then don't use MIT.
You operate in the us? You pay the irs. You operate in Brazil, you pay them.
The price was disclosed, optional and entered into freely. Dude is buying his lawyer a boat if he wants to fight it.
The 30% was not disclosed and applied unilaterally. Per the email exchange:
> "After check, we find your app in the black list, and a random higher rate will be applied. Usually when a guy is using a fake license key, or send unusual attacking request...
That said, if you really wanted to impress, you'd improve the visibility of your practices for each individual developer, by providing a dashboard that fully discloses revenue-over-time, along with proactive notifications when your terms change. The MVP here would be a single email sent when the 2% term changes.
This business model where the providing party retains the right to change terms arbitrarily has always concerned me, in the same way something like an indentured servitude contract would, and yet they are all too common. But its everywhere, and no self-interested business would take steps to reduce it's power against the counter-party. There is a whole set of problems here that neo-liberal capitalism not only cannot solve, but actually seem to make worse. It's easy to point the finger at a single dev, or a small team, and say "you're unethical!" but in truth I think the statement is more informed by the ability to identify the actor than the action itself, which is endemic. (To take two examples: variable rate mortgages, and credit card debt, neither of which are modeled by consumers and both of which are certainly gamed by the counter-party.)
I don't think taking 2% is theft. Maybe it's a dark pattern, but it's definitely not theft. In the article, I say that I calmed down after explaining with 2%, which means my agreement with the situation.
The way the increase to 30% is made and the number of users with such a percentage says that the author deliberately increases the percentage without warning the user, which is theft