Software was always license-based. For decades before SaaS was ever a thing. People apparently never paid attention.
On the other hand, that doesn't mean they can't require an EOL plan to be provided as part of selling a software license. The real question here is if they can mandate that be something like, "publish the server code." Which it won't be. Realistically, expect this to be like the EU ePrivacy Directive. That "Accept Cookies" button sure is helpful, isn't it? They might be forced to provide an EOL plan to the customer. The EOL plan is going to be, "go fuck yourselves, lol."
All digital purchases will always be licensed. Otherwise you could create infinite copies and give they away/sell them yourselves. Video DVDs were licenses. Audio CDs were licenses. They were just licenses associated physical media, so 99% of people were ignorant that it was a license.
If the end customer has full ownership of the data itself, there is no software or game industry because they'd never sell more than one copy. Best you could hope for surviving in a license-free world is a Kickstarter model where everyone chips in for the initial development.
Edit:
OR everything transitions to the SaaS you love so much. If I sell you remote access to a server that runs my software locally and don't even provide you a license, Then I can cancel you subscription and none of these proposed protections will apply. Everyone is hoping this somehow pushes towards more ownership. You might just push them towards trash like Stadia being the norm instead.
All digital purchases will always be licensed. Otherwise you could create infinite copies and give they away/sell them yourselves. Video DVDs were licenses. Audio CDs were licenses. They were just licenses associated physical media, so 99% of people were ignorant that it was a license.
That is false for the same reason you cannot infinitely print a book you bought. You don't need an EULA for a hardback, software licensing doesn't need to exist either.
You own the book: the physical item. You don't own the organization of the words on the page: the data. You didn't need a SW license for a Tamagotchi because the software was fixed in the physical good. Meanwhile, any digital book you buy is licensed because the IP is not fixed in a physical good.
It wasn't physical software, but there was that case two years back where Wizards of the Coast send The Pinkertons to some YouTuber's house demanding merchandise back because someone fucked up and shipped him unreleased MTG swag.
To be sure, there is a world of difference in enforcement.
That's one of many reasons why PC was always better than console. Go look at any console game you "bought" in the last 20 years. You'll see some "licensed for use on a ______" text on the disc. They don't need to revoke your license, they just don't allow for the creation of anything else capable of running it.
Definitely preferable to always-online and DRM. But it was still a license. Arguing about license terms is completely reasonable
Software was always license-based. For decades before SaaS was ever a thing. People apparently never paid attention.
On the other hand, that doesn't mean they can't require an EOL plan to be provided as part of selling a software license. The real question here is if they can mandate that be something like, "publish the server code." Which it won't be. Realistically, expect this to be like the EU ePrivacy Directive. That "Accept Cookies" button sure is helpful, isn't it? They might be forced to provide an EOL plan to the customer. The EOL plan is going to be, "go fuck yourselves, lol."
Slavery/Bride Stealing/Serfdom was the tradition for all civilizations for millennia, does that excuse it?
Stop being intentionally retarded.
All digital purchases will always be licensed. Otherwise you could create infinite copies and give they away/sell them yourselves. Video DVDs were licenses. Audio CDs were licenses. They were just licenses associated physical media, so 99% of people were ignorant that it was a license.
If the end customer has full ownership of the data itself, there is no software or game industry because they'd never sell more than one copy. Best you could hope for surviving in a license-free world is a Kickstarter model where everyone chips in for the initial development.
Edit: OR everything transitions to the SaaS you love so much. If I sell you remote access to a server that runs my software locally and don't even provide you a license, Then I can cancel you subscription and none of these proposed protections will apply. Everyone is hoping this somehow pushes towards more ownership. You might just push them towards trash like Stadia being the norm instead.
That is false for the same reason you cannot infinitely print a book you bought. You don't need an EULA for a hardback, software licensing doesn't need to exist either.
You own the book: the physical item. You don't own the organization of the words on the page: the data. You didn't need a SW license for a Tamagotchi because the software was fixed in the physical good. Meanwhile, any digital book you buy is licensed because the IP is not fixed in a physical good.
It wasn't physical software, but there was that case two years back where Wizards of the Coast send The Pinkertons to some YouTuber's house demanding merchandise back because someone fucked up and shipped him unreleased MTG swag.
Ubisoft literally has in the EULA that you must physically destroy their games if they declare them no more.
So its not that they aren't willing to do that, they just aren't at the level where its monetarily feasible to do so.
To be sure, there is a world of difference in enforcement.
That's one of many reasons why PC was always better than console. Go look at any console game you "bought" in the last 20 years. You'll see some "licensed for use on a ______" text on the disc. They don't need to revoke your license, they just don't allow for the creation of anything else capable of running it.
Definitely preferable to always-online and DRM. But it was still a license. Arguing about license terms is completely reasonable