>EULA aside, what a shame it would be if Jan B decides there's no € in it and stops maintaining Refox any further.

I personally never had the need for it, but yes I agree. But really it is about the EULA and whether it is reasonable.

>Apart from tweaks for more recent Windows versions and digital signing, my own experience is that when some of us confirmed the hook technique to crack most forms of protection for VFP apps, Jan B was *very* quick to respond with a competent anti-hack in Refox. Had he not done so, all those people Refoxing their apps believing they are preventing easy decompilation, would be wide open. So Jan has to know (and we want him to know) that he will be rewarded for this sort of improvement.

I would appreciate that as well. I have no problem in paying for a tool that is of great value. I do have a problem with unreasonable EULAs (But so has the dutch law)

>My personal test for unethical/improper behavior, is "what would happen if everybody did it." In this case, we too might save a few $ if just a few licensees paid Jan and then onsold use of Refox for a small fee, but there wouldn't even be a Refox if we all did that. Therefore it seems to me that onselling use/avoiding license fees only is possible as long as everybody else behaves properly (pays for a license) which means it fails the propriety test IMHO.

The real problem is that the market is too small. And in order to maintain profitability vendors try to do whatever possible to sell as many licenses. And some go over the edge of what is acceptable. I've spend tenths thousands of dollars on software and tools and I'm not going hold back on an unreasonable T/C while there is no chance of getting a refund because I disagree with the EULA. (I'm supported by that by the Dutch law btw).

The unethical part becomes only an (subjective) argument when it involves software that has a very small market and a vendor that wants to support it while not making a lot of profit on it. The financial impact of ignoring, violating the EULA might be significant for the vendor. But lets what about the following:

(Disclaimer, I'm not up to date with the latest EULAs of MS office)

Your neighbour does not hold any license to MS office, but knocks on your door to create, modify or print a word document (on your computer). Is it resonable to have an EULA that says that the software can only be used by the owner of the software and only for documents he owns? Please raise your finger who will deny your friendly neighbour to do this.

So if you have no problem with the above, what really is the (legal) difference between letting someone else create, modify and print a document and decompiling a piece of software on valid licensed software?
Please tell me because I have a hard time seeing the difference.


Disclaimer. I do not own refox, never used it as I have backups and sourcecontrol in place. I have all respect for JanB in creating and maintaining REFOX and hope he will continue to be profitable However I would argue that if his business is depended on this particular T/C, then I think the product has no viable commercial future.