3 ms·
> If I thought of that license text I would have simply declared this new version 3.0. Ouch. Despite what I think she's trying to claim, this statement shows t
by mishmash 16y ago
> If I thought of that license text I would have simply declared this new version 3.0.
Ouch. Despite what I think she's trying to claim, this statement shows that she clearly had no intention of keeping the "free upgrades til 3.0" promise.
Kind of a bum deal for her customers.
- senorprogrammer 16y agoThe tragedy is that it could all have been averted by numbering the 2.5 release as 3.0. From the comments on her original blog post my impression is that most complainers don't seem to understand that version numbers are arbitrarily defined by the developer. It's not hard to imagine she might have gotten good PR by announcing that v3 is out and, per the promise, a simple paid purchase through the app store.
- halostatue 16y agoShe kept it. I got a few upgrades since I bought CoverSutra a few years ago. Her error is that the change in distribution and licensing was probably sufficient for 3.0. RealMac annoyed me one time when I got v3.5 (or whatever it was at the time) in a bundle, but 3.6 was a paid upgrade…because they didn't think there was quite enough to justify bumping to 4.0. 3.6 came out about 4 months after the bundle, IIRC, so it was doubly bad PR.