>Hi JR,
>
>In Message#1662869, Rick Hodgin claims one or more of Chen's products violate the Microsoft VFP9 EULA and hence are not legal for use in the US (and perhaps other jurisdictions).
>
>That may have an effect on people or companies considering those products.
>You're the most experienced user of those products I know of. Would you or Chen care to comment?

I think this is impossible to answer, as it depends on jurisdiction of customer AND willingness to test borders.
Usually homeland of customer, not US as site of MS/origin defines the framework - esp. as MS often has daughter companies in customer homelands. There is no "The Law", but a myriad of locally binding and sometimes enforced sets of legal rules.

Speaking from German/probably EU POV, fixing errors via decompiling is ok, especially if maintainance is halted.
I am quite certain that anything sold to existing vfp customers patching a somewhere installed version would be totally ok.
Selling a patched version - esp to non-vfp customers - is clearly murky ;-)))

As Chen has quit a few offerings, the specific program - with the points of worry - should be spelled out.

A Vfp-C++ Compiler developed in White Room probably would be ok. From the mess of Google vs. Oracle on Java even under US rules a language does not fall under IP, APIs might, implementaions (copied...) do. US ways of handling IP are often more restricted/restrictive/customer unfriendly compared to other [developed] countries.

Anything decompiled/generated from vfp files could be problematic, with the dichotomic of Chen-product buyer having a vfp license or not thrown in.

But as vfp is defunct now for lots of years, even decompilation might be seen not as harsch as in 2004 for vfp.

And I will not respect any EULA rules presented AFTER sale transaction is finished. If MS "wishes" to spec rules, clear the matter before the sale is conducted/payment made. Otherwise the "meeting of minds" can never happen. If I am presented with such rules in advance, I can decide to buy knowing them and then I will honor them or seek another offering/solution.

If MS is eager to close the deal without pestering customers with the wishes they want to be the basis of the transaction and wants to spring such clauses after deal is made, I refuse to acknoledge them - such screens are nothing but nag screens I refuse to acknoledge.

Restrictions like # of computers to install, spelled out well in advance I will honor - IF I decide to buy (usually only if totally necessary and single license), things I use on day to day basis are selected with many bonus points for unhindered installs on any machine I own (and/or temporarily work with), more bonus points if source is given or at least can be bought as an option.

But if Chens offerings were to only operate from ANY already installed vfp9, patching/adding/overwriting some of those files, legally worried minds might make the jump with less worries. Sadly I think that such a move will NOT result in an abundance of sales/revival of vfp interest.