>>that's why they could never opensource VFP
>I don't think it was that. I think it was the Rushmore algorithm. Open source it and it
>would jeopardize the patent.

Software patents are nothing less than an abomination. A hideous hoarding of the gifts given the individual which could benefit all of mankind were it not for the artificial restrictions imposed upon every other person on the planet by the voluntary choice to hoard.

It is not for man to hoard knowledge, but rather to share, that all may grow up together using the unique and special talents present in all people atop those of all other people.


>In the end, I don't think that would have made a difference. Very few VFP devs would be
>able to modify the C code.

That's an insane opinion, one that runs in stark contrast to observed facts.

For example, people have devoted large portions of their lives to improving VFP within the mechanics of the system which is allowed (not having the VFP source code). Were the VFP source code released, it would've changed the direction of software because VFP is not just a data engine, but it is a nearly complete system. Add decent graphics support, and a more native method to communicate with other computers and it would have everything people need.

Microsoft had to kill VFP because VFP would've killed Microsoft's plans for controlling people's software ecosystems and computer use.