Originally Posted by skyesfury
Then you don't understand the situation.
People donated because they liked the add on. Those people that donated are, in fact, entitled. That leaves the authors with an obligation. That obligation is misconstrued by the misinformed as "entitlement". That obligation is to communicate with the donators, either by saying "we're not working on this anymore" or by providing an update or by removing the product from availability. Failure to meet that obligation has consequences. Those consequences are almost always negative in nature.
I know very few people that actually post here will understand this, and that's truly sad.
|
Sorry Skyesfury, your own argument goes against you. By saying that people who donate are entitled - makes them paying customers. Paying customers are entitled because they pay a price for a service or product. Entitlement is the belief that you are entitled ("have consideration payable" - since I hate using the base word in the definition) to something. See definition at the bottom. So, either the donors are paying customers (against Blizzard ToS) or they are not entitled to anything. Even if they were "entitled" see next paragraph.
Even if Carbonite was in this relationship and the donors were entitled - they have released a patch to fix some of the errors - donors (and/or customers) are not entitled to a completely bug free environment or product, especially in a software state that constantly changes. Also, in order to proceed and show obligation due, you have to have a contract of what will happen (verbal or written) with the funds you provide as consideration. In this case - the authors have stated that you can expect nothing in return except for their thanks for donations.
en·ti·tle·ment
[en-tahy-tl-muhnt] Show IPA
noun
1.
the act of entitling.
2.
the state of being entitled.
3.
the right to guaranteed benefits under a government program, as Social Security or unemployment compensation.