Doug - I know you are the messenger and I know what happens to messenger so I am respectfully addressing it to you as the messenger.

It is obvious that some people responding on UT are making statement without knowing a lot about ActiveVFP. I've used it and all the source code is there. The Pay Pal reference is a rather cheap shot and I have seen other comments to that effect on UT in an effort to get back at Claude, as he can be a forceful person at times. Having a Pay Pal link for contribution to an open source project is not something that Claude ginned up, it has been used on many other open source projects in the past.

I provide systems for small businesses and most of these businesses require minimal exposure to the web. ActiveVFP provides an excellent way to provide this service without a great deal of cost to the developer and the client and it is an area where Microsoft has hardly provided any assistance to the VFP developer commumity.

I fear the resistance to the ActiveVFP being included is that it is in direct conflict with other retailers of similar products. If that is the case then just say that. Just say the SednaX project will not be in competition with other third party vendors. I don't have a problem with that. I do have a problem with the amount of spinning going on about the decision and the circuitious argument being bantered about.

I appreciate all the work you and the other members have done to keep VFP viable. At the same time I encourage you to rethink your position on ActiveVFP.

Gaylen






>>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