2 ms·
Okay, I want to clarify something here: I didn't mean that I would prevent people from using the old versions. Seems some people think that. I thought the guy
by graderjs 4y ago
Okay, I want to clarify something here: I didn't mean that I would prevent people from using the old versions. Seems some people think that.
I thought the guy meant "to use the old licenses on the new code." Reading it again, I see. So, what I actually mean is, "I'm not sure if they can use the old licenses on the new code. But, I would prevent that if I could." Which is totally valid and I would do that--I can do that.
It seems somehow the other meaning has created lots of crazy ideas for people, and they've gone on a tangent, which you can see in the sibling thread here. It's not my fault, but I see how I haven't probably made it clear enough there: I'm sorry for not making it clear.
Ultimately, I think having those licenses in the past is a silver lining for customers, especially because people can access this old code, and it's not affecting our revenue with Pro or people who want to pay for the standard edition somehow. Because this old code and old licenses do not sync to the latest, don't give access to Pro, and it gives people a chance to have a taste and build on that. It's really just another part of the funnel.
And, I think the whole variety of licenses there is sort of a silver lining. So, I don't know where people got the idea that we're against having that or something like this. It's not like that. So, just understand.
Thank you!