>I understand your point. But you and I both know that such a freeware utility will be useless against any serious cracker threat.

Well...this is true, but also true with any utility that isn't freeware - really I think this is irrelavent here.

>You know that it will not provide the protection that one requires. Would you not agree?

mmmmmm...For the issue I'm talking about here - the extorsion - it would provide the exact protection I was looking for. (Protection from the refox extorsion- having to pay for refox to protect yourself from refox).


>>3) Jan sees a need for a product that can recover source code from compiled apps - so he builds it. taaadaa! Jan should be done now.
>>Now Jan realized that crackers could use the product for malicisous ends - so he provides a freeware utility to protect VFP apps from refox.
>>Ooops! Now Jan has lost 80% of his client-base.
>>
>>Come on Jos - Give logic the benefit of the doubt. Even if I give him number 1 as opposed to number 2, if Jan was eithcal neither would apply and it would be number 3.
>>
>>
>>>I think you put the horse before the cart. Give Jan a moment of benefit of the doubt. You can see this in one of two ways:
>>>
>>>1) Jan sees a need for a product that can recover source code from compiled apps when the developer or company loses the source. He builds it. But then realizes that crackers could use the product for malicious ends. So he adds in the ability to protect his clients from other Refox users.
>>>
>>>or
>>>
>>>2) Jan purposely builds a product that can crack sofwtare - a crackers tool, in effect. Then attempts to extort VFP developers on the fear of losing their source code to his cracking tool.
>>>
>>>Now which one sounds more reasonable? The truth at this point is that each person is free to choose to believe whichever scenario suits them. Me, I choose to believe that the tool was originally designed to help developers as advertised.
>>>
>>>
><snip>