7 ms·

It is honestly shocking the number of posters here that seem to think it's completely morally ok to renege on the deal with these lifetime subscribers because t

It is honestly shocking the number of posters here that seem to think it's completely morally ok to renege on the deal with these lifetime subscribers because the author didn't make much profit? To be frank, if these purchases are no longer worth supporting, those customers should receive a full refund.

SV_BubbleTime 4y ago
Caveat emptor should definitely be applied in this situation. Sorry you feel like someone should do something different, but you didn't enter into a legal contract, you bought software from a developer. They ultimately did not earn your trust. Live and learn?
- detaro 4y ago
  If there is a "license agreement" which terms are under debate, there is a legal contract that was entered.
Joeri 4y ago
IANAL, but as I understand contract law you can’t be expected to perform the contract if circumstances change too much (law of frustration). The developer here indicated they never expected to be providing support for a quarter century, and it doesn’t seem unreasonable a court would agree they aren’t bound by the “lifetime” license.
- cmeacham98 4y ago
  I am also not a lawyer, but I seriously doubt a court would accept "I didn't expect to actually have to live up to my end of the deal!" to be a valid change in circumstances. By this logic almost anyone could back out of a long term contract: "I didn't expect to still be in business 24 years later when I gave you that 25 year warranty!" To quote the top few results I got searching online for "law of frustration": https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frustration_in_English_law https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frustration_in_English_law > it is "not lightly to be invoked to relieve contracting parties of the normal consequences of imprudent bargains" https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/frustration_of_purpose https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/frustration_of_purpose > when a later and unforeseen event impedes the buyer's purpose for entering into the contract https://www.upcounsel.com/frustration-of-contract-definition https://www.upcounsel.com/frustration-of-contract-definition (emphasis mine) > However, frustration of contract is not acceptable in all circumstances nor in all types of contracts. It is acceptable when the law finds it unfair to force a party to comply with the contract terms ___due to events that are outside of or beyond their control___.
spoiler 4y ago
Mortality is nuanced, and not everything needs to have a protagonist and an antagonist (or victims). Anyway, the licences were purchased 10 years ago at an affordable price, and the author is offering to extend licenses if people email them. Was it naïve of them? Alas, it was. Is their latest decision detrimental to someone's quality of life? I doubt it. Alao, I don't know the details in this instance, but a lot of unlimited/lifetime products come with a shit ton of fine print which void the lifetime/unlimited clause. For example, a lot of hosting providers used to give you "unlimited" storage, but excluding media files, or apply "fair use" limitations, etc.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
PragmaticPulp 4y ago
> It is honestly shocking the number of posters here that seem to think it's completely morally ok to renege on the deal with these lifetime subscribers because the author didn't make much profit? mIRC sales are obviously declining. Author wants to continue supporting it, but the business model no longer works. The options now are: 1) Shut it all down. Author takes a job somewhere else. Product lifetime ends. Lifetime agreement honored. 2) Be honest, admit lifetime agreement isn't workable going forward, and come up with new license terms. Doesn't match the letter of the original license, but project gets to continue and author can continue working on it. 3) Create an "mIRC 2.0" out of nowhere that isn't any different than an incremental update, but gets presented as an all-new product. This is functionally equivalent to #2, but also adheres to the letter of the original agreement. I don't consider "author forced to work on product in perpetuity at a loss" an option, so I didn't list it here. I prefer admitting that the business model needs to change over shutting down the product or doing name-only new product launches to get around lifetime licenses.
- cmeacham98 4y ago
  I'm not expecting the author to continue work on mIRC in perpetuity. If they want to decide they're done and stop updating mIRC, that would be totally ok in my book. What is unethical, in my opinion, is to continue updating mIRC and not honor the agreement you made with some of your earliest supporters, even if you kinda regret that agreement now.
  - qudat 4y ago
    So you’d be okay with changing the name of the product while at the same time changing the lifetime agreement
    - cmeacham98 4y ago
      No, of course not, that would be dodging their responsibility just as much. They sold a license to all future updates of mIRC, I expect that to be honored (or refunded if not reasonably possible to honor) - and not for the author to try to play games to get out of this commitment. The author could start a new project, not based on mIRC, and sell that separately.
mikl 4y ago
mIRC isn’t some sleazy megacorp trying to cheat customers to fund new gold toilet seats on their private jet fleets. It’s one person trying to make ends meet by selling his life’s work. Sure, him selling perpetual licenses was a mistake, but he probably doesn’t have a pot of gold somewhere to refund those licenses. He spent the money maintaining the software. An honest mistake, not some sort of malicious scheme. I’d be happy to forgive him. If I were still using mIRC, I’d happily fork over another $20. Edit: actually, thinking about how much milage I got out of mIRC back in the day, decided to buy a new license just to support him.
- cmeacham98 4y ago
  This is the weird blind spot I'm referencing in my post. There seems to be this strong belief on HN that because they're a small time software engineer, that things we all agree would be unethical under the exact same circumstances from other actors ("some sleazy megacorp") are completely ok. I don't understand why his customers should be forced to eat the cost from his mistake. If a local small business sold me something at a price a little low (so they still made profit, just less than they wanted) would it be ok for them to take the thing away later and demand more money for it?
  - mikl 4y ago
    It’s not a blind spot. Its an acknowledgement of the fact that small time operations are often run by people without MBAs and without lawyers checking everything. Megacorps should be held to a higher standard, because they have the resources to meet them.
    - cmeacham98 4y ago
      What's the higher standard? "Megacorps are expected to actually honor their agreements"? I'd love to hear you articulate what the difference here is that Megacorps would be expected to catch with their "MBAs and lawyers", but the author of mIRC wouldn't?
      - 4y ago
wellbehaved 4y ago
It's not that simple. One can argue that the original contract is tantamount to a slave contract, thereby null and void at the outset. Now, some people argue that slave contracts are legitimate, and some argue that they aren't. But it's not the trivial matter you think it is.
- kevinh 4y ago
  Clearly not. The guy can stop work on mIRC at any time.
  - wellbehaved 4y ago
    "Clearly" isn't an argument. Your second sentence is even worse. The pertinent point is that you'd be interfering with his preferred choice to work on mIRC. Again, this is very debatable.
    - cmeacham98 4y ago
      Your comment isn't an argument either. All it says is "One can argue..." without actually providing the argument.
      - wellbehaved 4y ago
        It's easy to find such arguments using google, e.g. search "are slave contracts enforceable." Also look into the theory of contract law regarding what terms are enforceable and what not, and why. There's a whole range of legal theories and arguments.
        jackvalentine 4y ago
        This isn’t a slave contract. He can just… stop releasing updates and move on with life.
        wellbehaved 4y ago
rlpb 4y ago
> To be frank, if these purchases are no longer worth supporting, those customers should receive a full refund. English law generally accounts for the benefit received. For example, if you buy a physical product that works for only half its expected lifetime, the starting point is that you did receive half of the benefit of the product and so you are owed (the remaining) half of your money back. Or, put another way, if a product is expected to last a year, and fails one day before that point, you don't get to walk away with most of your money, and the other party nothing. That isn't fair to the other party, who did fulfil >99% of their obligation to you. What proportion of the expected benefit you received, and other issues such as consequential damages, also get factored into that, of course.
- counttheforks 4y ago
  The license is sold as a lifetime license. Most people who purchased a license will still be in the first third of their lifespan and only have purchased the license ten years ago. So, a fair assumption would be another ~60 years of usage.
  - waffleiron 4y ago
    Lifetime generally tends to mean lifetime of the product, otherwise a developer needs to support the software until everyone who bought it is dead.
    - counttheforks 4y ago
      Sure, whichever ends earlier. The product is still alive so far.
- cmeacham98 4y ago
  Yeah, but the product didn't break down. It'd be a bit like you had a book in good condition, and the company came by and stole it out of your home after 10 years of using it (despite selling it to your for life). I don't live in England, so maybe it's different there, but in the US you would not be able to claim partial completion of a contract in that case.

SV_BubbleTime 4y ago

Caveat emptor should definitely be applied in this situation. Sorry you feel like someone should do something different, but you didn't enter into a legal contract, you bought software from a developer. They ultimately did not earn your trust. Live and learn?

detaro 4y ago
If there is a "license agreement" which terms are under debate, there is a legal contract that was entered.

Joeri 4y ago

IANAL, but as I understand contract law you can’t be expected to perform the contract if circumstances change too much (law of frustration). The developer here indicated they never expected to be providing support for a quarter century, and it doesn’t seem unreasonable a court would agree they aren’t bound by the “lifetime” license.

cmeacham98 4y ago
I am also not a lawyer, but I seriously doubt a court would accept "I didn't expect to actually have to live up to my end of the deal!" to be a valid change in circumstances. By this logic almost anyone could back out of a long term contract: "I didn't expect to still be in business 24 years later when I gave you that 25 year warranty!" To quote the top few results I got searching online for "law of frustration": https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frustration_in_English_law https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frustration_in_English_law > it is "not lightly to be invoked to relieve contracting parties of the normal consequences of imprudent bargains" https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/frustration_of_purpose https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/frustration_of_purpose > when a later and unforeseen event impedes the buyer's purpose for entering into the contract https://www.upcounsel.com/frustration-of-contract-definition https://www.upcounsel.com/frustration-of-contract-definition (emphasis mine) > However, frustration of contract is not acceptable in all circumstances nor in all types of contracts. It is acceptable when the law finds it unfair to force a party to comply with the contract terms ___due to events that are outside of or beyond their control___.

spoiler 4y ago

Mortality is nuanced, and not everything needs to have a protagonist and an antagonist (or victims). Anyway, the licences were purchased 10 years ago at an affordable price, and the author is offering to extend licenses if people email them. Was it naïve of them? Alas, it was. Is their latest decision detrimental to someone's quality of life? I doubt it. Alao, I don't know the details in this instance, but a lot of unlimited/lifetime products come with a shit ton of fine print which void the lifetime/unlimited clause. For example, a lot of hosting providers used to give you "unlimited" storage, but excluding media files, or apply "fair use" limitations, etc.

deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]

PragmaticPulp 4y ago

> It is honestly shocking the number of posters here that seem to think it's completely morally ok to renege on the deal with these lifetime subscribers because the author didn't make much profit? mIRC sales are obviously declining. Author wants to continue supporting it, but the business model no longer works. The options now are: 1) Shut it all down. Author takes a job somewhere else. Product lifetime ends. Lifetime agreement honored. 2) Be honest, admit lifetime agreement isn't workable going forward, and come up with new license terms. Doesn't match the letter of the original license, but project gets to continue and author can continue working on it. 3) Create an "mIRC 2.0" out of nowhere that isn't any different than an incremental update, but gets presented as an all-new product. This is functionally equivalent to #2, but also adheres to the letter of the original agreement. I don't consider "author forced to work on product in perpetuity at a loss" an option, so I didn't list it here. I prefer admitting that the business model needs to change over shutting down the product or doing name-only new product launches to get around lifetime licenses.

cmeacham98 4y ago
I'm not expecting the author to continue work on mIRC in perpetuity. If they want to decide they're done and stop updating mIRC, that would be totally ok in my book. What is unethical, in my opinion, is to continue updating mIRC and not honor the agreement you made with some of your earliest supporters, even if you kinda regret that agreement now.
- qudat 4y ago
  So you’d be okay with changing the name of the product while at the same time changing the lifetime agreement
  - cmeacham98 4y ago
    No, of course not, that would be dodging their responsibility just as much. They sold a license to all future updates of mIRC, I expect that to be honored (or refunded if not reasonably possible to honor) - and not for the author to try to play games to get out of this commitment. The author could start a new project, not based on mIRC, and sell that separately.

mikl 4y ago

mIRC isn’t some sleazy megacorp trying to cheat customers to fund new gold toilet seats on their private jet fleets. It’s one person trying to make ends meet by selling his life’s work. Sure, him selling perpetual licenses was a mistake, but he probably doesn’t have a pot of gold somewhere to refund those licenses. He spent the money maintaining the software. An honest mistake, not some sort of malicious scheme. I’d be happy to forgive him. If I were still using mIRC, I’d happily fork over another $20. Edit: actually, thinking about how much milage I got out of mIRC back in the day, decided to buy a new license just to support him.

cmeacham98 4y ago
This is the weird blind spot I'm referencing in my post. There seems to be this strong belief on HN that because they're a small time software engineer, that things we all agree would be unethical under the exact same circumstances from other actors ("some sleazy megacorp") are completely ok. I don't understand why his customers should be forced to eat the cost from his mistake. If a local small business sold me something at a price a little low (so they still made profit, just less than they wanted) would it be ok for them to take the thing away later and demand more money for it?
- mikl 4y ago
  It’s not a blind spot. Its an acknowledgement of the fact that small time operations are often run by people without MBAs and without lawyers checking everything. Megacorps should be held to a higher standard, because they have the resources to meet them.
  - cmeacham98 4y ago
    What's the higher standard? "Megacorps are expected to actually honor their agreements"? I'd love to hear you articulate what the difference here is that Megacorps would be expected to catch with their "MBAs and lawyers", but the author of mIRC wouldn't?
    - 4y ago

wellbehaved 4y ago

It's not that simple. One can argue that the original contract is tantamount to a slave contract, thereby null and void at the outset. Now, some people argue that slave contracts are legitimate, and some argue that they aren't. But it's not the trivial matter you think it is.

kevinh 4y ago
Clearly not. The guy can stop work on mIRC at any time.
- wellbehaved 4y ago
  "Clearly" isn't an argument. Your second sentence is even worse. The pertinent point is that you'd be interfering with his preferred choice to work on mIRC. Again, this is very debatable.
  - cmeacham98 4y ago
    Your comment isn't an argument either. All it says is "One can argue..." without actually providing the argument.
    - wellbehaved 4y ago
      It's easy to find such arguments using google, e.g. search "are slave contracts enforceable." Also look into the theory of contract law regarding what terms are enforceable and what not, and why. There's a whole range of legal theories and arguments.
      - jackvalentine 4y ago
        This isn’t a slave contract. He can just… stop releasing updates and move on with life.
        wellbehaved 4y ago

rlpb 4y ago

> To be frank, if these purchases are no longer worth supporting, those customers should receive a full refund. English law generally accounts for the benefit received. For example, if you buy a physical product that works for only half its expected lifetime, the starting point is that you did receive half of the benefit of the product and so you are owed (the remaining) half of your money back. Or, put another way, if a product is expected to last a year, and fails one day before that point, you don't get to walk away with most of your money, and the other party nothing. That isn't fair to the other party, who did fulfil >99% of their obligation to you. What proportion of the expected benefit you received, and other issues such as consequential damages, also get factored into that, of course.

counttheforks 4y ago
The license is sold as a lifetime license. Most people who purchased a license will still be in the first third of their lifespan and only have purchased the license ten years ago. So, a fair assumption would be another ~60 years of usage.
- waffleiron 4y ago
  Lifetime generally tends to mean lifetime of the product, otherwise a developer needs to support the software until everyone who bought it is dead.
  - counttheforks 4y ago
    Sure, whichever ends earlier. The product is still alive so far.
cmeacham98 4y ago
Yeah, but the product didn't break down. It'd be a bit like you had a book in good condition, and the company came by and stole it out of your home after 10 years of using it (despite selling it to your for life). I don't live in England, so maybe it's different there, but in the US you would not be able to claim partial completion of a contract in that case.