Edit: reading some of the comments it seems that the license was offered with perpetual free future update, so backports would not be needed. In that case the a

Edit: reading some of the comments it seems that the license was offered with perpetual free future update, so backports would not be needed. In that case the author does have a legitimate grievance. Though these rug pulls are so common they should be expected. Lifetime of bug fixes and back ports, that is ridiculous. He is still free to use his software in a VM. Maintaining old versions like this is super expensive and is generally only done for customers that are paying a lot of money for that service. You basically need a whole second dev team for back-ports. Usually this is only done for government or industrial type stuff where the software is certified for a particular version. They pay a lot of money for that service, people who don’t need pinned versions are far better off with a subscription. As far as I can tell no licenses were revoked, the author is still able to use his old versions and thus this is a total non issue. I’ve personally been through the process of shifting customers from a perpetual license to a subscription model. Some did ask us to maintain old versions indefinitely for them but to explained to them that wouldn’t be viable without charging for that and since so few people wanted old versions maintained that cost would be amortized over fewer customers and would be much more expensive that simply updating. It’s not just one old version that needs updating it’s N, and if the fix depends on a new feature, well that would have to back-ported as well, it’s a total insane mess. I would ask the customer what their reasons for pinning to a version and make sure we didn’t break those reasons in new versions. I have some customers still using V1 from 14 years ago and they’re still happy with it.