>>http://reddevnews.com/articles/2011/05/19/microsoft-to-open-source-vb6.aspx
>
>If these jackasses at microsoft really knew anything they would open source VB6 and VFP. They already killed the products and along with that, microsoft developer loyalty from most of those developers. The only way to fix that would be to open source them. These dipsh*ts like to float rumors around to see what people will say only to retract everything (a$$wipe$!!!).

I don't think open-sourcing VFP would do diddly for the VFP community. ISTR John Koziol remarking here some time ago that important parts of the VFP code base are written in spaghetti-C and that only a chosen few at MS (maybe Calvin etc.) would dare to even consider modifying it.

Even if full source was available, I wouldn't like to bet that anyone could get it to compile and run without Microsoft's exact build environment and compilers.

Assuming the code was open-sourced, the effort required to create a major update (e.g. move to 64-bit) would be much larger than that of upgrading from, say, VFP8 to VFP9. A team with serious C/C++ chops would need to be assembled and would have to learn the existing code base before contemplating any changes. I don't see enough potential return to pay the team, or motivate any volunteers.

If there were no alternatives to VFP, that might be different. But there are lots, many of them already open-source and well-established.

About the only significant result I could see happening would be other open- (or closed-) source projects cherry-picking the code base for ideas (Rushmore etc.). But, that wouldn't benefit the VFP community. So, there's some truth to MS's argument they'd be giving away "crown jewels", and with little or no benefit to the community.