>>You don't get to make up your own rules according to who you think is deserving; see points 1, 2, 3, 4
>
>In the EU, It hardly has any meaning beyond the copyright. If I had to read and understand al the EULA's of products I have purchased I'd better started a lawyer career.
>In reality almost no-one does. VFP has been discontinued and therefore I have absolutely no problem whatsoever with someone else fixing problems in their core product.
>
>It reminds be of the Pentium bug in FPW2.6 that was fixed by a 3rd party and the year 2000 rollover enhancement. I have no problem with it and I did not see any legal action from MS at the time.
>
>There are not many examples where violating the EULA (beyond copying and distribution) let to legal actions altogether.
>This whole discussion has a high level of "Holier than thou"
>
>Walter,

It has nothing to do with holier than thou. Your (and Thierry's) replies are simply justifications for dismissing/ignoring the EULA, they don't change the facts of the EULA. You both are simply saying that you're prepared to take the chances of ignoring the EULA - which is fine and, quite frankly, I don't care. I am just pointing out that the EULA is what the EULA is; a legally binding agreement, either in the whole or in part, in some jurisdictions. That you say you don't think anyone will enforce it and hence "safe" to ignore/bypass/break/whatever is another matter entirely and for each person/company to decide on as they see fit.

.