3 ms·

> 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

> 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.

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.