3 ms·

Correct me if I'm wrong, but this is a normal piece of software, not some kind of cloud service. If that's the case, the developer has no ongoing costs from lif

by franga2000 4y ago

Correct me if I'm wrong, but this is a normal piece of software, not some kind of cloud service. If that's the case, the developer has no ongoing costs from lifetime license users besides hosting downloads and support. Hosting a few MBs to maybe a few thousand users per month is basically free these days, so if they just discontinued support for those users but let them keep using the software, the fallout would surely be much smaller. Losing support and even updates a decade into a very cheap "lifetime" license is fine. But the same executable that worked yesterday not working anymore is entirely unacceptable.

danuker 4y ago
> But the same executable that worked yesterday not working anymore is entirely unacceptable. I agree completely. But a problem is APIs are evolving. If security vulnerabilities get patched in libraries, and their new version becomes incompatible with the executable, you have to choose between staying safe and the program still working.
- franga2000 4y ago
  Yes, you have to chose, but in this case, users weren't given a choice.
nebulous1 4y ago
That's my take too. The proprietary software licence I could agree with is a perpetual licence combined with limited updates. I can accept that mIRC made a mistake when they offered free updates to all future versions, and needed to walk that part back. The problem with not accepting this is that mIRC could just be forced to rerelease as mmIRC, which is bad for everybody (users lose updates unless they switch, author loses branding). However, as you say, it should have just been the right to updates that was walked back, not the perpetual licence for the existing software.
- behringer 4y ago
  Most companies just stop offering the lifetime license to new customers...
  - nebulous1 4y ago
    Who is "most companies"? Most companies never offered lifetime updates to begin with. Anyway, the logic still applies: it's unlikely that mIRC has very many "new" customers so they wouldn't be commercially viable.
  - trynewideas 4y ago
    mIRC did, seven years ago: https://www.reddit.com/r/mIRC/comments/fq8hrf/comment/g2t5mx5/?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=web2x&context=3 https://www.reddit.com/r/mIRC/comments/fq8hrf/comment/g2t5mx... > From approximately 22-Aug-2015 to 07-Mar-2016: The home user license is valid for 10 years of updates. > From approximately 08-Mar-2016 to 01-Sept-2018: The home user license is valid for "several years" of updates. It is unclear exactly how many years that means. > And from approximately 02-Sep-2018 to now (March 2020): The home user license is valid for three years of updates.
huhtenberg 4y ago
> ... besides hosting downloads and support. Support can be an enormous time drain. This naturally depends on the software type, its quality and the composition of its user base, but I've been on a receiving end of the support firehose for a software with a lot of "simpleton" users and it was a nightmare. This doesn't sound like something that would apply to the mIRC case, but it'd be one rationale for yanking lifetime licenses. You want support - you need to keep chipping in.
- hamburglar 4y ago
  I don’t know why he wouldn’t just let everyone’s lifetime license continue and just start to provide shitty support to those users if he can’t keep up. Reneging on the license itself is a clear violation of the terms, but “support” is vague and subjective enough that you can pretty much scale it down to nothing if you don’t mind having unhappy customers.
- franga2000 4y ago
  Yes, that was exactly my point. Support is the only "costly" thing, so they could've just dropped that without preventing people from using the software. Retroactively changing the terms to only give support to people who "renew" their license every X years is a lot less objectionable than retroactively revoking their license to use the software at all and remotely bricking it through DRM.
  - huhtenberg 4y ago
    Did they really break older installs though? I read it like the change cut off the access to newer versions and older versions still work as before.
    - franga2000 4y ago
      The header screenshot in the article shows a "license not valid" popup and the article doesn't say anything about existing licenses. The quote "one of my colleagues [...] came across the expiration of his license" isn't clear either, but leans more towards "fully revoked" than "no more updates" in my reading. However, if existing versions do still work, I fully support the dev. In a world where billion-$ corporations advertise 50$/m "unlimited" phone plans that aren't actually unlimited, a solo dev revoking a lifetime support and update plan that cost 7$ two decades ago isn't even worth writing about.

danuker 4y ago

> But the same executable that worked yesterday not working anymore is entirely unacceptable. I agree completely. But a problem is APIs are evolving. If security vulnerabilities get patched in libraries, and their new version becomes incompatible with the executable, you have to choose between staying safe and the program still working.

franga2000 4y ago
Yes, you have to chose, but in this case, users weren't given a choice.

nebulous1 4y ago

That's my take too. The proprietary software licence I could agree with is a perpetual licence combined with limited updates. I can accept that mIRC made a mistake when they offered free updates to all future versions, and needed to walk that part back. The problem with not accepting this is that mIRC could just be forced to rerelease as mmIRC, which is bad for everybody (users lose updates unless they switch, author loses branding). However, as you say, it should have just been the right to updates that was walked back, not the perpetual licence for the existing software.

behringer 4y ago
Most companies just stop offering the lifetime license to new customers...
- nebulous1 4y ago
  Who is "most companies"? Most companies never offered lifetime updates to begin with. Anyway, the logic still applies: it's unlikely that mIRC has very many "new" customers so they wouldn't be commercially viable.
- trynewideas 4y ago
  mIRC did, seven years ago: https://www.reddit.com/r/mIRC/comments/fq8hrf/comment/g2t5mx5/?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=web2x&context=3 https://www.reddit.com/r/mIRC/comments/fq8hrf/comment/g2t5mx... > From approximately 22-Aug-2015 to 07-Mar-2016: The home user license is valid for 10 years of updates. > From approximately 08-Mar-2016 to 01-Sept-2018: The home user license is valid for "several years" of updates. It is unclear exactly how many years that means. > And from approximately 02-Sep-2018 to now (March 2020): The home user license is valid for three years of updates.

huhtenberg 4y ago

> ... besides hosting downloads and support. Support can be an enormous time drain. This naturally depends on the software type, its quality and the composition of its user base, but I've been on a receiving end of the support firehose for a software with a lot of "simpleton" users and it was a nightmare. This doesn't sound like something that would apply to the mIRC case, but it'd be one rationale for yanking lifetime licenses. You want support - you need to keep chipping in.

hamburglar 4y ago
I don’t know why he wouldn’t just let everyone’s lifetime license continue and just start to provide shitty support to those users if he can’t keep up. Reneging on the license itself is a clear violation of the terms, but “support” is vague and subjective enough that you can pretty much scale it down to nothing if you don’t mind having unhappy customers.
franga2000 4y ago
Yes, that was exactly my point. Support is the only "costly" thing, so they could've just dropped that without preventing people from using the software. Retroactively changing the terms to only give support to people who "renew" their license every X years is a lot less objectionable than retroactively revoking their license to use the software at all and remotely bricking it through DRM.
- huhtenberg 4y ago
  Did they really break older installs though? I read it like the change cut off the access to newer versions and older versions still work as before.
  - franga2000 4y ago
    The header screenshot in the article shows a "license not valid" popup and the article doesn't say anything about existing licenses. The quote "one of my colleagues [...] came across the expiration of his license" isn't clear either, but leans more towards "fully revoked" than "no more updates" in my reading. However, if existing versions do still work, I fully support the dev. In a world where billion-$ corporations advertise 50$/m "unlimited" phone plans that aren't actually unlimited, a solo dev revoking a lifetime support and update plan that cost 7$ two decades ago isn't even worth writing about.