4 ms·

> Again, a bold move that doesn’t quite walk the line of honesty. I don't see how the statement isn't honest. I'd be more careful about accusations of dishones

by jmull 4y ago

> Again, a bold move that doesn’t quite walk the line of honesty. I don't see how the statement isn't honest. I'd be more careful about accusations of dishonesty. As others have mentioned, devs in this situation typically just come out with a v2 that isn't covered by the perpetual license... or stop development altogether. Here the developer is at least admitting the license was naive and giving a still-generous 10 years and will actually give you lifetime license after all, if you're willing to write an email and wait a little. > ...I find this to be an extremely fascinating and concerning topic Because what we really need to worry about in tech is the little guy screwing you over after 20 years?

denton-scratch 4y ago
> and will actually give you lifetime license after all, if you're willing to write an email and wait a little. He doesn't say that you'll get a lifetime licence. In fact, if he now regrets ever issuing lifetime licences, it seems pretty unlikely that he'll issue new ones. I hate software licensing models. I wish developers would just sell proper support contracts.
- adql 4y ago
  > I hate software licensing models. I wish developers would just sell proper support contracts. Some (dare I say most) users would be entirely fine with staying with old version of most of the tools they use, especially if use of tool is basic.
  - TylerE 4y ago
    and...it's mIRC. It hasn't had major changes in that decade. It still looks like it did in 1998.
    - Sohcahtoa82 4y ago
      > It still looks like it did in 1998. Which is what makes it one of my favorite programs.
karaterobot 4y ago
> I don't see how the statement isn't honest. I'd be more careful about accusations of dishonesty. No, it's completely dishonest. He accepted money in exchange for certain terms of service, then changed the terms so that he can keep the money without providing the service. I'm genuinely not clear how it could even be interpreted otherwise. I feel for the guy, but no, it's dishonest. > As others have mentioned, devs in this situation typically just come out with a v2 that isn't covered by the perpetual license... or stop development altogether. According to the author of the article, the old license says it's for every version of the software in perpetuity. If he comes out with v2, that would be covered as well. My takeaway is: don't offer a lifetime license, offer a 10-year license. Or, include a clause in your lifetime license that says "by the way, I can change these terms in the future".
- andrewstuart2 4y ago
  That original license contract is legally binding, too. So it's not only about dishonesty at this point, it's a new legal liability that he's opened himself up to, which has the potential to cost him a lot more than the trust he decided to give up. It's a pretty brash move.
- polynox 4y ago
  It’s an obvious risk that the issuer of a perpetual license goes out of business.
  - kadoban 4y ago
    The issuer did not go out of business.
- JeremyNT 4y ago
  > According to the author of the article, the old license says it's for every version of the software in perpetuity. If he comes out with v2, that would be covered as well. Well this is easy enough... "mIRC pro" comes around and "mIRC" is discontinued. It's kind of strange that the author didn't even bother to do this much. I can only assume that the user base for a proprietary, Windows-only IRC client in 2022 is vanishingly small, so he may have rightly assumed not enough people would notice or care to cause him any headaches.

by jmull 4y ago

denton-scratch 4y ago

> and will actually give you lifetime license after all, if you're willing to write an email and wait a little. He doesn't say that you'll get a lifetime licence. In fact, if he now regrets ever issuing lifetime licences, it seems pretty unlikely that he'll issue new ones. I hate software licensing models. I wish developers would just sell proper support contracts.

adql 4y ago
> I hate software licensing models. I wish developers would just sell proper support contracts. Some (dare I say most) users would be entirely fine with staying with old version of most of the tools they use, especially if use of tool is basic.
- TylerE 4y ago
  and...it's mIRC. It hasn't had major changes in that decade. It still looks like it did in 1998.
  - Sohcahtoa82 4y ago
    > It still looks like it did in 1998. Which is what makes it one of my favorite programs.

karaterobot 4y ago

> I don't see how the statement isn't honest. I'd be more careful about accusations of dishonesty. No, it's completely dishonest. He accepted money in exchange for certain terms of service, then changed the terms so that he can keep the money without providing the service. I'm genuinely not clear how it could even be interpreted otherwise. I feel for the guy, but no, it's dishonest. > As others have mentioned, devs in this situation typically just come out with a v2 that isn't covered by the perpetual license... or stop development altogether. According to the author of the article, the old license says it's for every version of the software in perpetuity. If he comes out with v2, that would be covered as well. My takeaway is: don't offer a lifetime license, offer a 10-year license. Or, include a clause in your lifetime license that says "by the way, I can change these terms in the future".

andrewstuart2 4y ago
That original license contract is legally binding, too. So it's not only about dishonesty at this point, it's a new legal liability that he's opened himself up to, which has the potential to cost him a lot more than the trust he decided to give up. It's a pretty brash move.
polynox 4y ago
It’s an obvious risk that the issuer of a perpetual license goes out of business.
- kadoban 4y ago
  The issuer did not go out of business.
JeremyNT 4y ago
> According to the author of the article, the old license says it's for every version of the software in perpetuity. If he comes out with v2, that would be covered as well. Well this is easy enough... "mIRC pro" comes around and "mIRC" is discontinued. It's kind of strange that the author didn't even bother to do this much. I can only assume that the user base for a proprietary, Windows-only IRC client in 2022 is vanishingly small, so he may have rightly assumed not enough people would notice or care to cause him any headaches.