> 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? I've had friends who still owe me more money for something two decades ago than the author of mIRC does for my 'lifetime' license, and they don't give me anxiety either. Not all offenses against humanity are equal. It's possible to acknowledge that the act is equally unethical and also relatively much smaller in impact.

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. I don't consider 'author forced to work on product in perpetuity at a loss' an option, so I didn't list it here. This is functionally equivalent to #2, but also adheres to the letter of the original agreement. Doesn't match the letter of the original license, but project gets to continue and author can continue working on it.ģ) 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. Lifetime agreement honored.Ģ) Be honest, admit lifetime agreement isn't workable going forward, and come up with new license terms.

Author wants to continue supporting it, but the business model no longer works. 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 registration key