AJMACSERVE  Don't worry, I am working on it. It should be here by version 4.2!  
(Version 4.1)

SCOTT.GARDNER  If you have Open Directory configured, you have OS X Server. So, why wouldn't you just use OS X Server's VPN service? I'm just wondering if I'm missing something. Thanks!  
(Version 4.2)

MACUPDATE ADMIN  Re-categorized as 'Commercial', thanks for the heads up.  
(Version 3.4)

MACUPDATE ADMIN  Well said, thank you. The developer has decided at this point to pull his entire site from the internet. I'm trying to talk him into putting it back. It is a shame that a few people had to pound on him.  
(Version 2.6)

HAL0THANE  If we were talking about, say, an iTunes visualizer or an alarm clock, I'd completely agree with you (the thread OP). I'm a photographer, so I know my fair share about making money from your efforts. Having said that, though...

iVPN is not an iTunes visualizer or an alarm clock. It's security software. When most security-savvy computer users including myself realize that so-called security software (or any software) has a phone-home feature that allows for deactivation when a new version is released, we immediately doubt its trustworthiness. It has nothing to do with the age of the developer, or that he wants to make some money from his efforts, or that he didn't know a better way of doing it.

If you look around, essentially any product that's been shown to have call-home features has met a swift demise. Most recently, one game was delisted from the iPhone app store entirely because it uploaded users' address book to its servers -- even though they were upfront about it.

To quote that linked article, which I think also is the bottomline here: "Good intentions by slightly amateur programmers. It's alright. No malice intended."  
(Version 2.6)

AW21  I bought iVPN Yesterday for a Mac mini running Tiger. Since I couldn't try it before buying, I ran into a crash when entering the serial number. I mailed the author and got an updated version that registered fine (but I could not get it to work - but this might be my fault).

Today I tried it on a Leopard system and it installed fine (but still doesn't work for me).

After a restart of my Mac and iVPN I suddenly got an alert with the text "Don't try to trick me". After that I had to enter the serial information again, which now continuously fails. So it looks like he can disable the software remotely.

I'll take legal steps tomorrow.  
(Version 2.6)

BRENTB  @bilifer:

I'm sorry that you couldn't follow the argument. Let me try to flesh it out a little more for you. What I said above was a response to how the developer was treated personally. My response did not address any question related to the developer's software--including its security (or lack thereof). And as you surely know, omission does not equal agreement or endorsement.

If you'll look back, you'll see that neither my mention of the developers age, nor my comment about his desire to make money, were related to the /function/ of his software. The age comment was followed by, and referred to, the way in which he was /responded/ to. Again: him, not the software. Of course you wouldn't want to use any security software that calls home or that has backdoors.

We agree that the software needed changes. My claim was that the developer was treated too harshly. I infer that you believed (correct me if I'm wrong) I was saying that users shouldn't make such a big deal about security software that isn't secure, as evidenced by your second paragraph. If so, I'm sorry I didn't make that easy enough to see. :-)

If anyone else thought that, I'll just say: I believe that a developer's age or desire for profit should NOT lower the bar for the assessment of quality and the proper functioning of his/her software. With apologies to billifer. :-)  
(Version 2.6)

BRENTB  @aw21:

This is what I'm talking about. "Legal steps?" Come on. Can you prove reliance? I.e. can you prove that you suffered damages directly due to your use of iVPN? If not, then don't bother wasting money on court fees.  
(Version 2.6)

E_COMMERCE  I agree wholeheartedly with brentb. There are aspects of this situation that could have been handled better, but it's all part of life's learning process. I've seen far more established developers trip up in the same way. What has happened has happened, and it's time to move on.

I was wondering why the site was down today as well; I'd strongly encourage the developer to come back, and here's some more unsolicited advice (from a donator):

- Disable the phone-home capability in current versions. If that means the server-side program just responds with "2.45 is the most recent" to those versions and responds with the real version to new versions, so be it. Otherwise, it ends up being a case of bait-and-switch - and little upsets people more than that.

- Keep versions 2.45 and earlier free. Anyone who gets serious value from this will upgrade to the new version over time. It may take a few versions for them to come around, but they will. If people stay with the free version for a while, theylld eventually upgrade due to features, bug fixes, or OS changes.

- Perhaps it's too late, but I echo other sentiments that a discount on the first "pay" version is usually a good way to get people on board; then all future users can pay full price. Version 2.6 could have been $20, and versions after it $30. That way current users who had been getting it for free feel like they've gotten a deal, and sign up. As it stands, you've got a very, very angry user population on your hands, which is a shame as the program itself is excellent. Back when I developed shareware I changed my fee a couple times ($0, to $10, to $20) and existing users were always grandfathered in. That way as the program became more valuable, I gained more profit, but my early users got more value for their money as a reward from supporting me early on.

- Be very upfront about ANY "phone home" activity. Whether it's checking for updates or anything else, the user should know about it, and have the option of turning it off. *Especially* in security software.

- Don't use any form of "remote deactivation". Even worse than having people pay for something that used to be free is taking away something that has been paid for. Things goof sometimes, and that will likely make any such situation deteriorate *extremely* quickly. Piracy happens - I found my program's old serial in one of the databases of the day, and I never found it affected my revenue. If people aren't going to buy it, they aren't going to buy it - they're jerks. But always treat your paying customers with respect.

So, put the web site back up, be gracious about this current debacle, and it will blow over and the money will come. It's all good.  
(Version 2.6)

MACUPDATE ADMIN  Well, I've just sent another email to the developer. For whatever it's worth, I sent a link to this thread. He's pretty demoralized/angry, it seems. He has not responded to my last couple of emails.  
(Version 2.6)

AJMACSERVE  I'd just like to say that I'm sorry if I have upset quite a few people; this was absolutely not my intention. I would just like to explain to you how this "backdoor" or "home-phone" feature, as you are referring to it, actually works. Since the beginning of iVPN, the software has checked for updates by checking for a file on my web server that contains the most recent version of the app. The only thing I have changed since version 2.4 is that when it detects a version newer than itself, it asks the user to register. There was no underhanded attempt at getting personal information or anything like that, which is what I would refer to as a "backdoor" and a security liability. Also, I would like to remind everyone that iVPN does not actually deal with any of the security features it provides, it merely configures another program that is included with Mac OS X to do this. 'vpnd' is the program that is used to create the VPN server. It is a UNIX application that has been around for years and that anybody can use and configure themselves if they know how.

To show you that I am sorry for any ill feeling that I have caused, I now propose to do the following:

To physically remove the lockout feature of versions 2.4 and 2.45 is not a possibility, and so, I will enable the use of these versions by setting the current version number that is checked for, to version 2.4.

I am aware that some of you will already have versions 2.5 and 2.6 due to an flaw in my code that allowed bypass of registration. This is a learning curve for me.

I will continue development of iVPN (with the registration bypass fixed!) and will put my web server back online, and hope that there are people out there who appreciate all my hard work and will be happy to pay the small amount that I am asking for.

Whilst there have been many of you happy to use my program free of charge, the few users who did donate were happy to pay more than £14.99 for this software, and in some cases, considerably more.

Once again, sorry for this whole misunderstanding. And if any one still has any more queries about these misunderstandings, just let me know.  
(Version 2.6)

MACUPDATE ADMIN  Now there you go, I think everyone should be satisfied. I hope so.  
(Version 2.6)

HAL0THANE  Alex -- Very well worded. I'm sorry for any misunderstanding or hard feelings that this may have caused. Please accept my apology; when I learned that the software causes a lockout when newer versions are released, I merely had my old "system administrator panic" left over from when I used to take care of the systems for an auto manufacturing plant.

brentb: I was in the process of replying to you when I saw Alex's message come through, but essentially, I agree with what you had said and I realize that I had misunderstood your first message.  
(Version 2.6)

BRENTB  @billifer: Thanks. I appreciate it. Sorry again for the ambiguity.  
(Version 2.6)

AJMACSERVE  The 'backdoors' I put in place were only in version 2.4 and 2.45 and it was so I could start charging people for the software. Anyway...all it did was check for the most recent version of ivpn, and if it was higher, then it would ask you to update and buy the software. I've taken the lock off now anyway because so many people got annoyed for me wanting something in return for my endless hours of work on this software. I'M ONLY 16 FOR GOD'S SAKE!!!   
(Version 2.6)

AJMACSERVE  Well I'm sorry for wanting something in return for all my hard work. Do you know how many hours of work have gone into developing this application!? I didn't think my app would be so popular and so released it as opensource. Once I saw how many people were downloading it, I realized I could actually make some money from this. If I'd have released it as commercial ware in the first place, then you wouldn't be complaining. More of you should have shown some gratitude by donating.   
(Version 2.5)

E_COMMERCE  I have no problem with paying for this software, but I would not disable old versions (which is what it sounds like from the tenor of the other post). That type of situation has backfired on other developers VERY badly in the past.

In summary - 2.45 and below should continue to function indefinitely - it's how they were sold. 2.5 and above, shareware.  
(Version 2.5)

AJMACSERVE  Who's going to buy iVPN if they can get it for free though? I know what I've done will annoy a lot of people but if I'd have known how popular iVPN was going to be, I would have charged for it from the start. SORRY! Alright? But I need to make money too, just like everyone else.   
(Version 2.5)

MU FREQUENTER  I can appreciate your desire to make money (Capitalism is good), but disabling the previous versions is a nasty move. It's like slapping your fan base in the face. If you built it for free so far, then you're not out anything. Now that you want to charge, the best thing from a relations standpoint is to charge for future upgrades and releases.   
(Version 2.5)

AJMACSERVE  You know what, I don't care, have it!  
(Version 2.5)

MACSOLU  Have what, exactly?  
(Version 2.5)

AJMACSERVE  I've taken the lock of iVPN 2.4 and 2.45  
(Version 2.5)