FileZilla Pro "Perpetual License" – A Warning to All Users
github.com69 points by lobito25 2 hours ago
69 points by lobito25 2 hours ago
While I understand the author's frustration, I think they should take a moment and look in the mirror. A perpetual license doesn't mean that Filezilla should be a free hosting provider for installation media for eternity. Their reasons really aren't that relevant here. Likewise the rant about Mozilla is completely unfounded. There are many things to be upset at in the modern software world, this is not one of them.
I have a folder in my server where I archive the last several versions (usually 3-5) of all software I install. It would have helped in this situation but the main reason I started doing it >25 years ago is in case companies disappeared.
I have installation media for MS Office 2010 in my desk drawer. If I lose the disc, I wouldn't expect Microsoft to replace it for me.
I'm afraid I don't really understand what the author is angry about here.
Why... not? You paid for that software.
Because what you paid for is the software on physical media. Why would any publisher just hand out things for free that they otherwise charge for because you claim you lost the item. Back in the days of physical software, it used to be reasonable to buy and sell used software. The difference between "I lost it, send me a new one" and "I sold it, send me a new one" is a simple lie. Would it be nice if they issued a new copy that worked with the old key? Yes, but there is no moral argument for it.
If I lose a book, I wouldn't expect the publisher to send me a new one. If I buy a physical copy of a Nintendo game and lose the cartridge, there is no reason to expect Nintendo to send me a new one. Why would MS word be different?
You paid for a copy, you got your copy. The business is not responsible forever furnishing you a new copy.
The author didn't explain what the actual impact was on them. They stopped at "security implications" because the only reasonable outcome that would obviate this warning would be to provide the latest version for free. No, it doesn't make sense to provide an insecure version. No, it doesn't make sense to patch such an old version. The other reasonable outcome is the actual outcome - that FileZilla doesn't let them download it, but if for some reason they backed it up (which is cool) and want to use it (which is odd), they can still use it.
When the purchase medium is a download link the expectation is that the link keeps working if the company is in business.
Give a good reason it shouldn't.
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 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 their hearts (or because they signed up for a permanent liability for hosting)
Unreasonable and unrealistic expectation. You pay for a copy, you get a copy. Deal is over unless you have problem with the product in that it doesn't work as advertised or malfunctions.
Funny project, funny people, funny ideas. There is some really black and white thinking around feature requests on their forums - for example, segmented ftp downloading for their ftp client.[1]
They are not, nor have ever been interested in solving customer problems. That's ok; that's their privlidge.
Weird to connect FileZilla and Mozilla, but leave out that both are presumably named after Godzilla.
It's like going, "weird that they named it hemoglobin when it bears no physical resemblance to hematite!"
I began installing perpetually licensed software in VMs about 15 years ago. When I upgrade my (hypervisor) hardware, the VM still runs just fine. Obviously, a VM wouldn't be a suitable environment for FileZilla.
This is a blunt warning to anyone who ever purchased, or is thinking about purchasing, FileZilla Pro.
I bought FileZilla Pro under a perpetual license - a one-time payment, lifetime right to use the version I purchased. After reinstalling my operating system, I simply needed to reinstall the software I already paid for.
Here's what happened:
- Support admitted I still have the legal right to use the old version of FileZilla Pro that I originally purchased. - Then they told me they refuse to provide the installer for that version. - Their excuse: “For security reasons we do not provide older versions.”
The impact:
If a customer cannot download the installer, the "perpetual license" is dead. It doesn’t matter what rights they acknowledge on paper - they are blocking any practical way to use the software unless you pay again under their new subscription model.
There is no way to reinstall. There is no way to access the product you bought. Your "perpetual license" effectively becomes worthless the moment you reinstall your OS or lose the installer.
Full text on link.
If you bought something from a physical store and lose it doesn't entitle you to go get another one for free...
Lifetime licenses are basically a scam these days. Don't trust any of them.
And instead trust that subscription prices will stay constant and that the company will always stay in business and support the product you purchase?
The root issue is trust, not a lifetime license. In fact, a lifetime license is a good predictor of trust because users prefer it to subscriptions and it indicates that the company at least pretends to be interested in the customer's wants.
Trust can always be abused, as in this case. Trust is gone everywhere. That doesn't mean it can't be rebuilt. It won't be rebuilt on a subscription model that no one asked for.
This makes no sense. A lifetime license is convenient conceptually, but it completely detaches your goals (working software) from a company's incentives (provide absolutely zero after initial delivery - everything afterwards is cost without upside). Lifetime licenses are bad for users (cf this post, as just one example).
Subscriptions are incentives for companies to keep doing what you want, along with direct consequences (everybody will cancel) to penalise them for ignoring their core user base.
Don't let the awkwardness of the system (fully agree modern banking is shit at letting you manage recurring bills) distract from the underlying user-beneficial dynamics.
So, going to https://filezilla-project.org/prodownload.php?beta=0 and entering your email address and order number doesn't work?
I admit it's a bit shitty, but I can also understand.
You could have saved the installer, put it on disk, you could find a copy of it elsewhere, etc.
I don't think it makes the idea of the license void, but it's for sure not the nicest customer move.
You can understand what? You're listing workarounds, not justifications.
Since it would cost them roughly nothing to keep old installers around forever for paid users, it's really hard to imagine a justification.
Sounds like piracy may solve such problems (of course just for the binaries)
Why did they not mention what the operating system is? I don't think it unreasonable for a company to no longer support operating systems that are also unsupported.
I guess this is akin to Microsoft not allowing you to download Windows XP any more.
Since when GitHub is a blogging platform?
I guess we’ve reached a point where instead of taking personal responsibility for our backups, we just try to turn the internet into our personal army against products.
[dead]
Sounds like all software from the 70s through 00's.
Did they ever claim they would hold a backup of the installer?
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 author of that GitHub repo would know better than to use it.