>The passage you quoted is kind of adding to the confusion. ActiveVFP doesn't fall under any of those items. It is not commercial and it does include all source code, AFAIK. Can you please clarify the reasoning again? Thanks.

Sure:

- The submission Claude made to us was EXEs only, no source code. It wasn't clear from his submission that there'd ever be source code provided.

- ActiveVFP used to be a commercial product, and it isn't clear that it still isn't, given the PayPal donation link on its Web site.

- One of the things Craig, Rick, and I discussed was how to distinguish commercial products or demo versions from truly open source software. We decided that an acid test was whether the person who submitted it could walk away and someone else take over as project manager. IOW, did the submitter "own" the code. We didn't feel ActiveVFP passed this test.

Given the uncertainty in these issues, we didn't feel ActiveVFP was a good fit for a SednaX project. I can understand Claude (and others) disagreeing with this, which is fine. But I don't understand the unprofessional behavior and personal attacks exhibited by Claude. We're not killing ActiveVFP, we're not discouraging people from using or contributing to ActiveVFP; we're simply saying it's not a good fit for SednaX. Put it somewhere else and have 100,000 happy VFP developers using it -- that would be great.

Can we move on now?

Doug