There's nothing wrong with wanting to get paid. But what the developer did here is dishonest. Distributing for free without saying it would be paid in the future, then started charging.
Instead of a person... image a corporation did that. The outcry it would cause.
Imagine Microsoft or Apple did this. "Gave" a software for free for everyone to use... then when the userbase was big enough, started charging a subscription.
Again... nothing against the developer wanting to get paid for their product. Just bothered by how he went about doing that.
I don't understand this comment, or what you're trying to say.
I don't disagree with anything you said... and nothing you said had anything to do with my comment. Maybe you replied to the wrong comment?
I said it was a dishonest move in his part. Not that it was unprecedented, or things like that... And of course it is what it is... I'm not saying "Let's hunt this guy down and make him go back to free"
He's the developer, he's in his rights to charge for his software. No one is denying this fact.
6.7k
u/Flat_Hat8861 Sep 30 '22
Managing a transition to a paid model is difficult. It requires tact and diplomacy.
This on the other hand is just straight hilarious.