The simple reality is that the developer chose to advertise the product to date offering "free updates", not "free updates until I feel otherwise". I believe the developer means well, and had good intentions, but the way this situation is being handled is very poor compared to how other developers have handled similar transitions. Existing customers are not being treated in a professional manner.

There are ways the developer could have handled the change that would have been far more professional, fair and reasonable. For example, informing existing customers well in advance the policy would be moving to paid version upgrades, and changing the product advertising to state the new policy, with the "paid version upgrade" policy only enacting on the next version (or some reasonable period, say 6-12 months after notification).

Had this approach been taken, and the first paid version upgrade offer compelling reasons (for and upgrade costing a very substantial fraction of the initial cost), not all customers would be happy, but I believe most would understand and be accepting of the transition.

Instead, the developer created a situation where with virtually no notice, the stated free upgrade policy was recanted. To make matters worse, despite charging 30% of the initial cost, the upgrade in question consists primarily of bug fixes, not long after releasing a particularly nasty bug to the public. While recouping maintenance costs is reasonable, a 30% upgrade cost for bug fixes just isn't reasonable, particularly in context of the way the whole situation is being handled.

The approach taken ensures most customers feel misled (because we WERE misled). The developer's failure to even attempt to recognize the inequity of the situation just makes things worse. The approach also raises serious questions about the developer's ongoing commitment to existing customers, given the disrespectful way the transition has been handled.

Legal repercussions? Possible, but unlikely. That said, shareware relies heavily on word of mouth and online reviews, they both play an important role in sales. The kind of reputation and credibility damage from this kind of conduct tends to be long-lasting, and very harmful to small shareware developers. I suspect the developer is about to learn a rather nasty lesson in the role of developer reputation to shareware sales.

I guess what I'm saying is that while I was happy to purchase MailSteward, and would have gone along with a well-handled transition to paid version upgrades, the current approach really leaves me feeling misled and cheated. However diligent the developer's efforts and intentions, false advertising is inexcusable, and the developer's failure to make ANY attempt to mitigate the situation just comes off as further disregard and disrespect for us customers.