I was questionning the words "Microsoft Permissive License" in your text. According to the definition it means that Microsoft is distributing the sofware. Which does not seem to be the case here. I you think that is trival, then so-be-it. I don't.





>>If this fix is "approved by" Microsoft, why can I not find it on Microsoft's site?
>
>Are any of your suggestions or works (VFP code blocks here in UT helping others etc.) "approved by" Microsoft?
>
>"Approved" ?? - Please read the license, what it says about using VFPSOURCE!!!
>
>Hmm. Is SednaX also "approved" by MS. Is any 3rd party addendum or improvement approved by Microsoft??
>
>
>This is a FREE addendum to the code Mr Levy has started (creator of Class Browser). I have discussed this BrowserFix with MS several times and (don't know if this is the reason but after these conversations MS licenses policy for VFPSOURCE was published) after all these conversations I was not sure where and when and to whom I should send this FIX. I was told that every effort to make VFP better is good but MS resources are very limited to add any support to this matter. To not mentioning any names, some of in MS was interested about this but still I didn't got any final judgement what to do with it. So this has been waiting in my BROWSERFIX directory for a while. But after I email bombarded MS, I didn't got an answer but a new Licence agreement. After this I was able to release this.
>
>AT
>
>P.S. I hope you all should first use a common sense and logic before you are asking this kind of trivial things. English is not my mother language and it would be take some time to answer these questions. Time that can be used much more usefully.