>>>>You don't get to make up your own rules according to who you think is deserving; see points 1, 2, 3, 4
>>>
>>>Why not? Microsoft did it dozens of times. Learn from the best.
>>
>>Yes, I am sure they do but they have the money to defend themselves or, perhaps put better, attack others.
>
>Then that's not justice, not even legal system, it's just legal market.
>
>Just remembered one thing: Chen is selling a patch. You have to have VFP first. It's not a competing product.
>
>If it was competing, it would be interesting to compare prices.

... to add: all arguments such as no one cares, it's not maintained, it's end of life, it's not sold, etc. etc. are just rationalizations and justifications for doing what a person wants to do (and I'm guessing "they" already have). Look, I dont give a crap about the VFP9 EULA, I just dont need to bother about EULAs because they do not hinder me in my specific case. However, I certainly can understand the position of an entity making a risk/reward calculation as to breaking any law or agreement (EULA or otherwise) - we do this all the time when we go over the speed limit or claim a personal expense as a tax deduction or whatever. I am not making a moral point here. I am making the point that a EULA might be binding legally in your jurisdiction and/or in your own personal moral system and one should be intellectually honest and admit that. And from that factual point decide whether the risks of breaking an agreement (or a law) outweigh the reward for doing so. Each to his own.




.