>Free does exist in everybody's dictionary. In yours too.

That was a figure of speech. To clarify, I do not write programs for free, and I cannot see myself trying to convince anyone (including Jan) to write anything for free.

I undertands what you want and I'll repeat my position on your request.
1. Refox is a decompiler, to help you recover your lost code.
2. Refox also brands applications to prevent decompilation for other decompilers (including Refox itself if Refox is use as is and not hacked) .

If Refox is hacked, that changes Refox's vocation and Jan cannot be held responsible for Refox being used in a manner that was not intended. Thus, I fail to see how you expect me to convince Jan to write a free utility, because a hacker decided to make Refox do something other than was intended. The same situation if Refox is hacked to spit out money from your CD door (figure of speech of course), would blame Jan if you thought is does not spit out enough money?

I think the car analogy was used in the thread before. A car manufacturer supplies you with a car that is intended to by used on roads, to take you from your house to your work (and back). If you decide one day to soup-up your car (change engine for a bigger one) and decide to use your car for drag racing and you end up in a accident, would this make the car manufaturer reponsible? No, because the decision was made to change the vocation of the product.


>>>The profit margin should be approx. 30 percent of the price for you? It is an expensive tool, so the margin per sold copy is quite high. I guess, you are saying here that it is not sold often times and that totalled margins are therefore low. Tip: Perhaps a version can be created that decompiles only one time, for a lower price. Having given this advice, I of course still plea for a free utility that enables us to make an application insensitieve to decompilation with Refox.
>>
>>
>>Sorry, I cannot discuss profit margins with you here, but 30% is not right and too high.
>>
>>>>>I of course still plea for a free utility that enables us to make an application insensitieve to decompilation with Refox.
>>
>>I cannot help you there either. Free does not exist in my dictionary and I will not bring this request to Jan, so if you are up to it sending him a message, but I will not support a move in that direction.
>
>Mike,
>Free does exist in everybody's dictionary. In yours too. But I think I understand why you wrote it in this way. You seem to be of opinion that I try to get something for free for which we of course should have to pay. Here we fundamentally differ. I feel strongly that Jan tries to get money for something that should be provided to us for free, because Refox has created a problem for us that we have not asked for and providing a utility for free is the solution to that problem. To be consistent, the only requirement for that free utility is that it can be used to make a vfp-application insensitive to decompilation with Refox. What I am missing up till now is a clear statement, with arguments, by you or Refox about this point of view.