Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

FileZilla Pro "Perpetual License" – A Warning to All Users

github.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

91–100 of 140 posts

Re: FileZilla Pro "Perpetual License" – A Warning to All Users

#91

Post by viraptor »

benatkin wrote: post #17
viraptor wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There's a difference between "we don't have it anymore" and "we won't provide it for security reasons". They're not the same.

They are essentially the same as software purchased from the 70s to the 00s though - shrinkwrap software, a term cleverly coined by Joel Spolsky. I just thought of it as buying software in a store at the time. Perpetual license is also a good descriptor. If you have the same OS you downloaded it on, hopefully you have it backed up. The scenario "we won't provide it for security reasons" only shows up as a gotcha. The…

I see that as more than a gotcha. It speaks to what the company really stands for if they say "yeah, we got it, you bought rights to use it, but nah, screw you". They're in no way obligated to provide the installer of course, but if they have the ability, I'd still complain if they don't.

Re: FileZilla Pro "Perpetual License" – A Warning to All Users

#92

Post by Dylan16807 »

echelon wrote: post #86
Dylan16807 wrote: post #85

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> This is like people who think $5 is too much for an app. We've become entitled to think software is free because giants pour lots of ad-riddled software in our laps. Your complaint is misplaced. Software takes work, and updates take work. Hosting It basically is zero cost to keep those files available somewhere. > You bought the car. You can use the car forever. If you lose it, that's on you. If the manufacturer ha…

> Hosting > It basically is zero cost to keep those files available somewhere. You don't know that. Maybe it was put in a bucket or host that died when the company switched to a subscription model. Maybe they don't have copies on hand. Maybe it was a previous team that owned it. Maybe a different owner. You're assuming a possibility space of zero chance of work on their behalf. There are lots of things that could hav…

Some of those errors would be understandable (but still reflect pretty badly on the company), but given they said they refuse to allow downloads it doesn't sound like they lost the data.

If they don't have copies on hand, they could fix that with a one time effort that still comes out as negligible overall.

Also if they can prevent just a few support tickets, they'd save money from the effort.

Re: FileZilla Pro "Perpetual License" – A Warning to All Users

#93

Post by tim-- »

Dylan16807 wrote: post #88
tim-- wrote: post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So then you didn't buy a lifetime subscription? Why would you get access to the software for lifetime, if you ordered only a 1, 3 or 5 year license? Your right to receive updates is limited to the time that you selected when you ordered FileZilla Pro. If you have, infact, ordered a "Perpetual License", then you would have agreed to the Terms and Conditions when ordering FileZilla (here's a random old copy: https://we…

> The T&C said once you downloaded the product, you were required to keep the software yourself. Which is a bad thing, and it's good to warn people about that clause loudly.

Sure, but that is an older Terms and Conditions. It was a perpetual license, not a lifetime license that is sold today. It's like saying you shouldn't purchase Windows 11 because Windows XP no longer gets updates. Well duh! It stopped being supported more than 10 years ago, and Windows 11 is a different license to that of Windows XP.

The lifetime license purchased today is not a perpetual license. FileZilla says that it will update it for life.

So, respectfully, no, it's not good to warn people about the clause, because people purchasing the product today do not run into this issue.

Re: FileZilla Pro "Perpetual License" – A Warning to All Users

#94

Post by dghlsakjg »

Tostino wrote: post #71
dghlsakjg wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Maintaining a perpetual archive for the convenience of those that don't do backups is not part of a typical licensing agreement. It is a nice thing to do, but unless a perpetually accessible hosted file service is what you bought, it is reasonable for the company to stop hosting copies of software that they no longer sell. Some people might believe differently, and some companies might do it out of the goodness of th…

I absolutely conceded that it is not legally required. I just don't want to do business with people who think that's an ethical way to do things. The hosting excuse is pathetic. Learn to do your job and it isn't something you need to think about more than once every half decade. I had to maintain a full build artifact history of my old app. It "just worked" for years and years without thinking twice, and cost a handf…

> Really, what excuse do you have for that other than screwing people who previously trusted you enough to do business with you?

The license itself is ~$13 for a perpetual license and a year of support and updates. What expectation should I have that because I spent $13 years ago that the company will support me after my one year support window expires? Presumably, everyone on here knows supporting software isn't free. As you pointed out yourself, the hosting costs aren't free. At a certain point, paying a few dollars per month to host a decade old version of a $13 product that gets downloaded once a year actually is a problem.

Just out of curiosity, what is your plan to host the old versions of your app until 2060, say? Will you setup all that infrastructure again if your current provider goes down? Or is there a time limit that is reasonable to no longer offer downloads for, maybe...

Who exactly is getting screwed by being charged $13 to replace an old version of software with a new version because the client failed to do a backup before nuking an HD for an OS install.

No one is being screwed. This is just one party thinking that they are entitled to perpetual support for a perpetual license, and the other party saying that the license is perpetual and the support ends at 1 year.

Re: FileZilla Pro "Perpetual License" – A Warning to All Users

#95

Post by [deleted] »

reactordev wrote: post #46
heyitsdaad wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Good faith and common sense is being violated. That’s a valid point here.

Good faith ended at sale and support. Common sense isn’t at play because who is going to host installation media for eternity? No. There’s a nothing burger here.

[deleted]

Re: FileZilla Pro "Perpetual License" – A Warning to All Users

#96

Post by Dylan16807 »

tim-- wrote: post #93
Dylan16807 wrote: post #88

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The T&C said once you downloaded the product, you were required to keep the software yourself. Which is a bad thing, and it's good to warn people about that clause loudly.

Sure, but that is an older Terms and Conditions. It was a perpetual license, not a lifetime license that is sold today. It's like saying you shouldn't purchase Windows 11 because Windows XP no longer gets updates. Well duh! It stopped being supported more than 10 years ago, and Windows 11 is a different license to that of Windows XP. The lifetime license purchased today is not a perpetual license. FileZilla says that…

It's still the same company behaving badly.

If Microsoft blocked me from installing an obsolete version of windows via the activation servers, it would be reasonable to hold that against them.

It's not about updates, it's about being able to use the original purchase.

Re: FileZilla Pro "Perpetual License" – A Warning to All Users

#97

Post by Brian_K_White »

Dylan16807 wrote: post #82
Brian_K_White wrote: post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Just like it would cost you roughly nothing to keep exactly the same copy in your own backups. So why didn't you if it was so effortless and free?

My job isn't based around copies of this software, so hypothetical me forgot. Forgetting is a pretty good excuse I think. The company didn't forget anything. They're refusing the download on purpose , presumably because they don't want the user to walk away happy without paying more.

What an incredible load of excuses and rationaizations.

The fact is they don't owe anyone any backups or any reasons.

I guess you will just have to go on feeling abused and robbed. Go ahead and try to sue them for theft and fraud if you think your argument actually holds water.

Re: FileZilla Pro "Perpetual License" – A Warning to All Users

#98

Post by Brian_K_White »

gruez wrote: post #74
Brian_K_White wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why do you think there is any difference? Did servers and backups and data centers and electricity and cooling and ups batteries and generators and facility operators and banwidth all become free while I wasn't looking?

They're going to need "servers and backups and data centers and electricity and cooling and ups batteries and generators and facility operators and banwidth" regardless, because they're still selling licenses. The cost of providing downloads to existing owners is marginal.

So... they are free or they are not free?

Re: FileZilla Pro "Perpetual License" – A Warning to All Users

#99

Post by Dylan16807 »

Brian_K_White wrote: post #97
Dylan16807 wrote: post #82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My job isn't based around copies of this software, so hypothetical me forgot. Forgetting is a pretty good excuse I think. The company didn't forget anything. They're refusing the download on purpose , presumably because they don't want the user to walk away happy without paying more.

What an incredible load of excuses and rationaizations. The fact is they don't owe anyone any backups or any reasons. I guess you will just have to go on feeling abused and robbed. Go ahead and try to sue them for theft and fraud if you think your argument actually holds water.

Is forgetting to back up an installer really that bad of an excuse?

I don't even know what you're calling a "rationalization".

And this isn't about what they legally owe, this is about them having very bad customer support.

Re: FileZilla Pro "Perpetual License" – A Warning to All Users

#100

Post by paulmooreparks »

> If you’re considering FileZilla Pro, understand exactly what you are walking into: You can pay for a perpetual license, and later be denied any way to reinstall the product you legally own.

No. You are not denied any way to reinstall the product you legally own. It's on you to maintain backups of your installers. If you have that backup, you may install it and run it legally.

> Their excuse: “For security reasons we do not provide older versions.”

I can understand that logic. If an out-of-date version is found to have a vulnerability, then if they provide that version but don't update it, they are exposing themselves to lawsuits. Whether or not the lawsuit makes sense is another matter, but I can imagine the company's lawyers putting the kibosh on providing an archive of outdated installers.

Post reply on HN