Disclaimer: The following is only my opinion and I am not a legal expert on EULAs. If you agree with my opinion or my opinion causes you to do anything than you would have otherwise done, you do so at your own risk. LOL

"If you distribute the contents of XSOURCE.zip or a modified ReportPreview.pjx in source code form you may do so only under this license (i.e., you must include a complete copy of this license with your distribution), and if you distribute the contents of XSource.zip or a ReportPreview.app in compiled or object code form you may only do so under a license that complies with this license."

I can see the part that makes you leary though. I mean, does the second part mean that since I bundle ReportPreview.app with an application that I have to give the application away for free? There's not a snowball's chance that that is what Microsoft meant or would try to enforce. The firestorm for them would be brutal and they'd lose that battle in court a million times over. I was actually pretty impressed with the EULA, it was short, to the point and it actually sounded like English (part of me secretly thinks the MS Fox Team wrote it and not Microsoft's legal department). I grant you that they could have been a little more exacting on that line, but I think we're pretty safe.


>The new VFP9 SP1 license for XSource can be viewed at http://www.microsoft.com/downloads/details.aspx?FamilyId=0D1C3EC6-FFA2-4237-A0FA-8DEE4C62557D&displaylang=en
>
>Can anyone tell me what the following phrase in Section 3(D) actually means?
>
>"if you distribute the software or derivative works in compiled or object code form you may only do so under a license that complies with this license."
>
>Sounds somehow recursive (or subversive, or ... ? :-)