>>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.

This "willingness to test borders" is the most crucial clause here. Many companies (even Microsoft) won't step up and enforce their legal rights until there is some notable reason to do so. One person burning an ISO copy of VFP9's installation disc, or if they know that certain keys have been leaked and are in even widespread illegal use, won't trigger them to act. But, that doesn't change the fact that the law is on their side, and when they are so inclined, they will rise up and come for you and your company and your assets and when they win in court you will lose.

It's what the force of law is established to do ... to keep law abiding people in line with what they should be doing, because there are consequences to wrong actions, and even the threat of that possibility, the cost of a trial, the cost of hiring lawyers and potentially losing all with a punitive ruling, it all adds up to erring on the side of caution (for the law abiding citizen).

In addition, there are other considerations that a discerning individual would consider.

>Speaking from German/probably EU POV, fixing errors via decompiling is ok, especially if maintainance is halted.

It would be great if this were true, but I believe the actual law today sides with the patent / copyright holders, and you have to wait until the patents expire or the copyright expires (which, on software, won't happen on today's code probably in our lifetime) before it can be used / tweaked generically by someone, as by decompiling, investigating, re-using, employing algorithms, etc., apart from the previous license.

This will likely be tested on the area of ridiculous patent / copyright claims, such as copyrighting the equivalent of deriving a balanced formula to obtain a result (such as what a matchmaker site did with their algorithm). In those cases, the patent / copyright holder will assert their right in court, the defendant will defend their position and they may win.

It's one of the reasons a lot of patent / copyright holders DO NOT take people to court, because they potentially lose less by having some people break the law and not pay than they would by going to court and having a ruling against them. So, they'll continue to effectively extort money from people under the threat of legal action. It's a big money maker that way.

>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.

Agreed. But if Microsoft sees VFP continuing to work due to Chen's alterations, and providing for workarounds to changes in Windows technology or implementation that breaks previous operation with a native VFP9 installation, that may pique their interest.

Microsoft tried to do away with the desktop with Win8 and it's future intended direction. It's clear they do not respect 32-bit GDI apps. They want us to move to a model where everything we install goes through them, and is not coming from unknown third parties. But, that attempt failed and in later releases of Win8, and in Win10, they reversed their position. It still indicates their intent, their philosophy, where they're headed by goal and design.

"Where do you want to go today?" Should be replaced with, "We're trying to lead you where we want you to go today."

It's why we should band together and create replacements for everything Microsoft offers. To undo that most intrusive, hateful, and hideous influence upon this world by their spy-on-everyone, collect-data-on-everyone, monitor-everything world they seek to be a part of. It's more dangerous to populations than nuclear bombs. Literally.

>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.

Microsoft states that if you do not agree to the terms you can return the product. I do not believe you would win on that argument / basis.

BTW, Microsoft's model here of having you agree to the terms after the sale is initially had is very much like the way withholding tax is taken from your check before you get your money. Because I guarantee you that if Americans had to start writing hundreds-of-dollars checks to the federal / state / local governments every pay period, there would be a tax revolution in a matter of days. Henry Ford, from a bygone era, is quoted as saying, "It is well enough that people of the nation do not understand our banking and monetary system, for if they did, I believe there would be a revolution before morning."

Something similar should take place with regards to Microsoft's tentacle intrusions into our entire lives. They should be cut off completely and we should turn the other way and never look back.

>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.

Chen's work on VFP9 and related binaries is illegal. It should not be used.

Chen should take his amazing technical abilities and work to create a new VFP clone that will carry us forward. I would welcome such a product with open arms.

UPDATE: Here's a reference to the landmark case: http://www.osnews.com/story/23794/US_Court_Upholds_EULAs_Criminalises_Pretty_Much_All_of_Us