>So you blithely ignore
>
>"Unless applicable law gives you more rights despite this limitation,
>you may use the software only as expressly permitted in this agreement. "

I did not ignore this part. The law only gives you more rights in certain cases, such as working for a library / museum, or if you are a security researcher, or if you are a forensic specialist working for law enforcement agencies, etc. It doesn't give end-users the ability to fix their own code.

BTW, this is the exact reason Richard Stallman began the GNU project and started the FSF. He was being prevented from fixing code that he needed to use because the copyright holders would not let him in to fix it. He then began thinking about this and came up with the whole copyleft principle. It's described in detail in the movie Revolution OS: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jw8K460vx1c

It describes the whole foundation of why Copyleft came into existence in the first place.

>- and -
>
>"[you may not] reverse engineer, decompile or disassemble the software,
>except and only to the extent that applicable law expressly permits,
>despite this limitation..."

Same thing.

>Can you not see those highlighted sections at all?

Of course I can. I just happen to know what they mean.

>>>How does Chen's product require a VFP development license?
>Shame on you for not finding out before making pronouncements.

You misrepresent me, John, and it is to your discredit, not mine.

If I am wrong in any of my statements I will stand up and affirm the same, apologizing to the offended parties, asking forgiveness, and then proceeding from that day forward with a new resolve to not make that mistake ever again.

But if I am not wrong, then there's something here you should be paying attention to that you're not today. Will you be the same kind of stand up guy I am willing to be if I am wrong?

jw8K460vx1c