3 ms·
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. Retro
by 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 agoDid 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 agoThe 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.
- behringer 4y agoIf 7 dollars isn't worth writing about then I'm sure the author won't mind issuing my refund should my lifetime license ever expire.