This "then getting 3 years worth of new software" is a non-sequitur. They weren't using and the benefitting from the new features during those three years, so no "abuse" exists except in the management team's minds.
Imagine someone someone who left their car uninsured for 3 years, and decided to re-insure being told they must pay the 3 years back insurance because new policies have additional features. Or Microsoft making everyone upgrading to a newer Windows version pay the upgrade fees for all the versions between.
Retroactive update charging frankly, comes across as petty. It is one of the most restrictive licensing terms I've run across in 30+ years of working in the software world.
I hope this post doesn't disappear as other critical posts about the new licensing model have.
I have a license that I paid full price for a while back. I stopped renewing it because I never used it. I thought I was going to use it for something but it turns out I didn’t end up using the software for anything. I paid renewals for about a year or two but the software just say there not ever one time being used. It didn’t make sense for me to keep renewing it.
However, I like to think that if I ever figure out a use for this software, then I have already paid for it more than a few times over. It should be there for me to use and start paying renewals again.
I hate to think that I would have to pay full price for it all over again. 😣
