>No, I don't think that was why it was rejected.
>The key thing was not accepting software contributions where there is an "existing 3rd party product".
>Then they seemed to backtrack and say it was because ActiveVFP would damage some existing companies
>if it were to become part of SednaX. Are you confused yet?

Not confused, I now see the point. I read the blog article fully and also got the point, that AVFP is open source and why it really was rejected.

It is of course arguable, why not to include some project/component to sednaX, only because there are many similar projects/components of other 3rd party vendors. But there is a slight danger of the SednaX project getting in conflict with such vendors. And even though the danger is small, Craig and other administrators of the project might not want to risc the success of the overall project.

ActiveVFP is still there, even if not included in SednaX and it does not suffer from being rejected, does it really? If Claude will still maintain the ActiveVFP project there still will be free web enabling of VFP, won't there be?

Bye, Olaf.