Chris128 wrote:... that code remains the property of the developer ...
remains the property of the developer; the copy of the executable
does not. Would you argue that you don't "own" your copy of Windows, Office, SQL Server, etc.?
Chris128 wrote:... if they want to change that license ...
... then by any reasonable legal standard, they would need your consent to do so. You can't simply decide to change a legal document in your favour after it's been applied!
Chris128 wrote:... saying you have to pay to continue to use it is fair enough ...
be "fair enough", if the product had been provided as a service or a time-limited demo. Since it was provided as a free tool, changing the terms after you've install it is not acceptable
Chris128 wrote:... why should they keep getting it for free?
Again, if it had been provided a service, I would agree. However, it was not
Look at it this way:
If Microsoft announced that the next version of SQL Express would cost $100, I don't think anyone would argue that it was too much. But if they also announced that every existing instance of any previous version
would stop working unless you paid up, would you think that was "reasonable"?!
I keep coming back to the Simpsons, because it accurately depicts what Red Gate were trying to do:
Uh, Milhouse saw the elephant twice and rode him once, right?
Mrs. Van Houten:
Yes, but we paid you $4.
Well, that was under our old price structure. Under our new price structure, your bill comes to a total of $700. Now, you've already paid me $4, so that's just $696 more that you owe me.
Mr. Van Houten:
Get off our property.