>>>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.

At least in the EU and I would expect anywhere outside of the US, There are too many problems with EULAs to be legally binding contracts and therefore they are NOT legally binding contracts. Its an agreement at best. There are a host of buts and ifs I went through many years ago, but most importantly is that local laws often overturn things in an EULA. For example the right to resell software is allowed in the EU despite what the EULA says about it.


Walter,