Craig, Don,

please don't get me wrong, but you should take the example of Tamar, who seem to understand this much better.

The thing goes like this: I have a very simple problem, and I make a simple question. Tamar understands it and make a simple answer (you just can't do this because of the EULA). I understand the simple answer of Tamar, which is right, and that's all, end of the story. I do not try to ask any more, as the answer is clear.
Your answers are value judgment, which is what bothered me.

If I had a more complicated problem, then I should have employed much time in trying to resolve it. I should have read the EULA, and everything in between. But should you read 32 pages of EULA to decompile a simple FXP of a few lines you can rewrite in one hour? You just ask, which is what I did, you devote the time to every problem in proportion, that's all.

And by the way, the copyright does not have anything to do in this case, is the EULA that matters. You own a copy of ReFox, and you are not trying to infringe the copyright, you are attempting to use it in the wrong manner, that is, trying to decompile a FXP of another person who does not have a valid copy of Refox. This is terms of use, which is part of the EULA, the terms of use are not part of the copyright.

>Specifically US law, but many countries have agreed on copyright protection laws. EULA and copyrights are very different things. As always, an intellectual property attorney in the proper country should be consulted.
>
>>Which law? US law? Let me remind you that this is an international forum where different laws apply depending on the country you're operating in. There are several examples (e.g. MS and Oracle) who found out the hard way that their EULA's and MS laws are not universally recognised.