If they are "on plan" with Sage (meaning: perpetual current on maintenance, or active subscription) they are entitled to upgrades / updates / hotfixes.

For anyone who does not have a current license, we only apply patches / updates / hot-fixes that were released while they had an active license.

Otherwise, we do "best effort" at keeping a customer running, with a caveat that we can't guarantee anything on unsupported versions.  New script or custom report in an ancient version (perpetual, off plan), no problem.  Help with an error message... sure.

(I can't comment on Master Developer type licensing considerations at all).

So there is Sage support without being on subscription? 

Does Sage frown on partners that support customers that are running non-supported versions?

I have an opinion on how Sage handled the transition from Perpetual licensing to subscriptions that is not favorable, but Sage has every right to set the terms and conditions of its software subscriptions however they wish.

If anyone violates any licensing agreements, yes.  Otherwise, I can't see why / how.

Should you not be aware, the subscription is enforced by a "dial home" service... it's not an honor system.

If you bought a car and it's paid for, should you be required to sign a lease to get it serviced?

In my opinion Sage should have offered their subscription program to new users of the software and give incentives to existing loyal users to upgrade. 

Acumatica and Netsuite are benefiting from how Sage treats slow to upgrade customers.

Software is not a physical object like a car, and it is never "bought"... it is licensed under a EULA.

I have found that customers slow to upgrade don't have the money to upgrade so going to Acumatica or Netsuite is not an option for them. I do know one company on MAS90 Level 2.0 and another one on MAS90 v4.3.  

i had one client on the unix version until about 2 years ago

Every customer had a choice to stay on perpetual maintenance plans, or move to subscription.  Sage pushed subscription with incentives.  It was still their choice.  If they bought perpetual and wanted to stay at perpetual, that was their choice.  We do still have a few clients on perpetual licenses, but not many.  New purchases at one point were offered only subscription.  

This really has nothing to do with a customer being slow to upgrade.  We have lots of "on subscription" converts from perpetual, that are on older licenses for one reason or another.  Unrelated to license type. 

For those customers that can't afford being on subscription and their 100 / MAS90 is getting fragile, the Open Sage native cloud open source project written in PHP is an option.

To-upgrade or not-to-upgrade is indeed separate from licensing considerations.

The way Sage handled Perpetual customers was backwards (IMHO).  Perpetual customers have paid Sage much, much, much more than new subscriptions, yet they have fewer features unless they effectively give up their perpetual rights.  At the time, the Sage 100 product owner tried to sell a line that the perpetual rights don't go away, they are just locked in at the old version level... which is ridiculous.  Everyone knows you can't downgrade a system, so as soon as they upgrade their initial Perpetual investment goes *poof* and disappears... with some of our Perpetual clients really having a very strong negative impression of Sage for such a massive display of disrespect to their oldest customers.

Perpetual customers should have been given a one-time grandfathered "go off plan", after converting to subscription (locking in at the then-current version)... as a recognition of their having paid for perpetual licenses initially.  (Instead of the constant slaps-in-the-face to perpetual customers with "subscription only" features still being a part of the product).  This is not an incentive to upgrade, it's more like a punishment for not changing, after being a long-term customer who paid a higher up front cost with the older license type. 

Sad that the decision makers at Sage ever thought this was a good way to treat their customer base.  Recurring revenue is good... we all agree... but there are right and wrong ways to transition.  Sage could have done much better.

Sage claims customer loyalty is job one. Sadly they have taken crippling software as a tool to achieve their goals.

I feel the Master Developer program has taken the biggest hit moving to subscription and the adaptation of BOI.

Kevin,

Your comments hit the bullseye on how a company should  transition to a subscription program.

I'm surprised that the reseller-> partner base didn't have more input in the decision.

Sage claims customer loyalty is job one. Sadly they have taken crippling software as a tool to achieve their goals.

I feel the Master Developer program has taken the biggest hit moving to subscription and the adaptation of BOI.

Kevin,

Your comments hit the bullseye on how a company should  transition to a subscription program.

I'm surprised that the reseller-> partner base didn't have more input in the decision.

Sage had to go to the current subscription model because they were getting killed by market analysist and their revenue stream was not as healthy as it should be. People were letting their license expire and kept on using the product with no restrictions. So they went the same way that almost all software companies are going now. You have to pay each keep using. 

Yes, subscription is the way the software industry is going for sure, but those perpetual customers who keep using the software after stopping maintenance paid a high up-front cost for that benefit.  It's not like it was free... they did not violate any licensing agreement, and treating them so poorly is bad practice.

Adding development and software maintenance costs, just to disable features from their most loyal customers who paid a big up-front costs... such a warped strategy.

Lets have one Sage 100  you can buy outright or on a subscription. Stop charging for documentation and development resources. 

I think Sage would do well offering a non-subscription version that includes source. This would allow customers to use 100 as a core financial system and able to interface and expand with multiple vendor solutions.