This has come to bother me a bit more and more. Of all the software I own Maple is the only one where you only get one bug fix (a .01 release) update after purchasing (and that is usually after a fairly short time after the release and I can only theorize that most fixes in the .01 patch was likely known at the release but didn't have time to go through the release and QA procedure in order to make it for the .00 release).
I certainly don't expect to get new features for free but I don't think it is unreasonable to expect fixes to known and recognized defiencies in the product I bought to be made available, for say, 24 month after purchase.
I'm not that naive that I cannot see the logistics problem of maintaining several branches coupled with the fact that maplesoft is quite a small company (in relation to the complexity of maple) and the need to get revenues by customers upgrading to new versions and focusing one main product dev branch and adding new features to stay competetive. However, for non-academic licensees maple represents in software terms a fair investment and I can't help wondering if this bugfixing policy isn't causing unnecessary "bad-blood"?
I think it would be more honest to clarify that you get the release you purchase and that's it. To get bug-fixes you have to purchase the subscription. As far as I can see the current product policy wording implies bug-fixes for free - but in practice that is not really the case.
What speaks against changing this policy, I guess, is that in the math-sw area not providing bug-fixes seems to be the norm. This applies, for example, to matlab as well. But two bad doesn't make one right.