>>Perhaps I missed the thread on this, but if it wasn't created it is now . . .
>>
>>Microsoft Launches New Open Source CodePlex Foundation
>>
>>http://blogs.iis.net/bills/archive/2009/09/10/microsoft-launches-new-open-source-codeplex-foundation.aspx
>>
>>I suggested they open source VFP (though the comment has not shown up, yet). Anyone want to second that?
>
>Hi Russell. Your request here is a common (and logical) one. Here is some insight to why Microsoft will never release Visual FoxPro source code into open source.
>
>As mentioned in this thread, yes, there is technology in VFP, like Rushmore optimized indexing, that is used in other Microsoft products SQL Server and Access. It’s not the same C/C++ codebase, but many techniques and algorithms originated from VFP. Microsoft considers this intellectual property, an asset not to be given out.
>
>But the two more significant reasons have nothing to do with the reason above. They have to do with business. While Microsoft is not focused on sales of VFP, it is focused on sales of Visual Studio and adoption of the overall Microsoft platform (stack of products and services). Releasing VFP into open source would result in less VFP developers using the current (modern) Microsoft platform of products, but may also result in someone or some company creating a competitive product against Microsoft. Microsoft would not want to see the code used to enhance a competitive product nor would they want to see a new product created that interferes with VS sales or .NET platform adoption.
>
>Not that it is in any way equivalent to the VFP source code being placed into open source, there were some things done in the area of shared/open source. I worked with Microsoft legal on two projects related to shared source. One was allowing some MVPs in various countries to help allow key community members to localize VFP into various languages. This involved allowing some MVPs to use an internal Microsoft tool along with some of the VFP code (strings) to localize to create a new localized runtime DLL and help file, for the community to release and support. The other project I worked on with Microsoft legal was updating the license agreement for Xsource.zip (included with VFP) to be online as a download with an updated license agreement essentially making it shared source, to allow developers and companies to modify and also redistribute any of the code.
>
>After those projects, and after VFP 9.0 was released, I came up with the idea for a single location online for various community based VFP projects. I was aware of a new website Microsoft was working on to be similar to SourceForge, eventually called CodePlex.com. I contacted Doug Hennig, Rick Schummer, and Craig Boyd to see if there were interested in kick starting a project like this, and then got them involved in an early private beta of the site to have a VFP shared source project included when CodePlex launched. I then suggested the name VFPX (X for extended, and X is also 10 in Roman numerals), and there was a community vote on various names and VFPX was selected. The results have been great thanks to many volunteers in the community. It’s cool that not only are there sessions on VFPX at various VFP conference like the upcoming SWFox event next month, but Sara Ford is the keynote speaker at SWFox this year, she is the program manager for CodePlex since last year. I recently interviewed Sara in a CodeCast podcast show (http://codemag.com/codecast).
>
>Myself as well as Randy Brown were always for making VFP open source, but knew that it would not happen due to Microsoft strategy (not legal reasons). It’s dismissive to conclude that it is lawyers making the decision here. Microsoft will never release VFP source code into open source because there is no business reason to do so and a list of business reasons not to.
>
>While I may not be describing information and details that you want to hear, hopefully it does help you understand things on this topic more to release. As Tore said in this thread, it’s a dead issue and won’t ever happen. VFP 9.0 standard support lifecycle ends in less than 4 months (Jan 15th, 2010), with only paid extended support available after that until Jan 2015. I expect to see less hotfixes and such for VFP 9.0 in the future, if any. Virtualization (such as XP Mode in Windows 7) will substitute for compatibility issues with future versions of Windows. The evolution of VFP goes on into the next decade, with new and enhanced products that work with VFP, community projects such as VFPX, and of course the VFP community itself.

Thanks for the info. I have seen, from what I believe was a reliable source that I don't quite remember now, that Rushmore was not in SQL server. If what you say is accurate, perhaps they didn't want to admit that a pipsqueak relative of SQL server (probably their opinion, not mine) could contribute anything to their enterprise-level RDBMS. And, of course, I knew it wouldn't be the exact codebase if it was used, but, as you say, techniques and algorithms. But, as we've both metioned, they did use VFP technology elsewhere.

Anyway, with this new open source initiative, I just thought it might be a good time to prompt them again to think about releasing VFP. Naturally, I didn't have much hope of them actually following through. Ultimately, I don't trust their open source initiatives or much of anything they do and neither do others, it seems:

http://www.networkworld.com/cgi-bin/mailto/x.cgi?pagetosend=/export/home/httpd/htdocs/news/2009/091709-microsoft-codeplex-foundation-criticized.html&pagename=/news/2009/091709-microsoft-codeplex-foundation-criticized.html&pageurl=http://www.networkwo

Thanks again for your reply.