Using EULAs To Bait and Switch

jalefkowit writes "Watchfire, the company behind the popular Web accessibility testing package Bobby, has come up with an innovative way to squeeze money out of customers: they changed the licensing terms of Bobby for the latest release, but don't mention the changes in any of their sales materials -- the first time you'll hear about it is in the EULA, when you install the software. The kicker is, the changes mean that some customers will now have to buy many, many more copies of Bobby than before -- and if the new cost is too rich for your blood, they won't refund the money you paid before you found out about the new terms, since they laid it all out in the EULA! Your options are to either pony up for the additional licenses, or ditch Bobby without ever getting back the money you paid up front. I've written up my experiences dealing with Watchfire and their "upgrade" to Bobby 5.0 -- consider it a cautionary tale for people considering upgrading their own copies, or for anyone who's concerned about how EULAs let companies dodge responsibility for being honest with customers."

Comments

at least can you downgrade?

[morcheeba]

Can you get back to the previous version & be out just the $99, or is the upgrade process non-reversible? As software becomes more network-centric (where not all of it resides on your PC alone, but some key is on the mfg's server), this may become harder for a user to do.

Not-for-Profit vs. For-Profit Software

[WallyHartshorn]

I guess this is what happens when software moves from a not-for-profit organization to a for-profit company. I guess this is also what happens when the software isn't Open Source.

Sounds like it's time for someone to start another Open Source project on SourceForge. (Alas, it won't be me, but I'm hoping others will step up to the challenge.)

If I understand correctly...

[Otter]

Maybe I got this wrong, but -- you used to be able to generate HTML reports that clients could easily read, but they've now removed that feature, forcing you to export in native format. (That's not exactly true, but for the sake of argument, let's say it is.) This forces those clients to buy their own copies to read the reports you generate.

That's frustrating, and arguably sleazy, although I can see their motivation for doing it. And I'm sure they didn't advertise "Now missing one of your favorite features!" on the box.

But how does this qualify as "changing the licensing terms"? Nothing you've said (AFAICT) involves a change in licensing terms. You have a reasonable cause to be angry but it seems to me you're throwing around accusations in an entirely dishonest way.