Rick,

Just for clarity: if MS were offering VFP11 with lots of bug fixes and innovations and Chen began selling a competing derivative, I would agree with you. Since IP protection is there to stimulate innovation for the good of the people, allowing others to hack and sell their own derivatives would dis-incentivize MS investment in its product, which is clearly opposite the purpose of IP protection.

However, Chen is offering a free add-on that requires a VFP development license and corrects bugs neglected by the licensor who no longer sells or supports their product.

For the 5th time (if you include your previous identical performance on Foxite):

I challenge you to post the exact EULA term you say makes people crooks- in full. IOW No selective snipping or leaving out inconvenient parts.

If, as I assert, there is clear acknowledgment that the prohibitions are not absolute, then you need to explain why you are so sure that there are zero grounds as required for this to be a simple moral issue.

Last time, you insisted that IP law exists simply to protect rights holders. I say this is wrong: the constutution's authors were not trying to lock in elite advantage, they valued IP protection to stimulate innovation and commerce for the good of the people. This is why it's illogical to insist that IP laws can be used to prevent people fixing faults themselves if the license-holder refuses. That's opposite the purpose of IP protection.

Unless you can do all these things, you have no standing to accuse or spread FUD in an otherwise peaceful technical forum so I won't be responding further to "good Rick versus bad community" memes and I'd encourage others to do the same.