>>>Chen is working around technical limitations in the software with his product.
>Now you're ignoring a different part of the EULA you quote yourself(!) and prolonging the furor. Emphasis mine:

I included discussion about the part you're saying I ignored. You snipped it.

>>>The software is engineered to allow you to use it in certain ways. You must comply with these technical limitations
>IOW "technical limitations" doesn't mean "stuff wrong with VFP and bugs" as you want it to mean. It means things VFP is engineered to do- like work on Windows, not Linux.

It also means having a limited SYS() function built-in to the software with a certain range of abilities, whereas Chen has extended that feature to add new abilities, bypassing the limitations of the built-in function. Chen also writes:

1, Fix some compatible problems for the Microsoft Edge and Internet Explorer 11 browser.

That could be considered a technical limitation. VFP9 may have been purposefully intended by Microsoft to not be compatible with future products, and was only intended to work with a snapshot of Windows-related software which existed at a time and for a time. That is not outside the scope of what a lot of corporations do when they manufacture products. How many people have bought VHS tapes, then later DVDs, then later Blu-ray or online streaming versions of something? How many times do you need to pay for the same content just in another format? It's the same with Microsoft's software. VFP9 for a time, then an alternate like Access or .NET, etc. They simply do not support the "old format" any longer, and here Chen is bypassing technical limitations to allow it to keep going.

This is my point about dealing with a rights holder. When they have the rights, you are at their mercy. It's why things need to be re-created to remove those barriers and limitations, and put the rights in the hands of the people en masse.

>Clearly the "software documentation" says VFP is supposed to be able to use SPT against SQL Server fields and display OLE previews. So if these features are faulty, please don't insist on such impossible construction when those are barn door bugs/software interoperability issues and with MS saying support is over and no more patches- seems to me there's no barrier to remedy.
>
>Please also acknowledge that the EULA specifically allows reverse engineering in compliance with US law. If you continue to refuse so you can call others crooks, shame on you.

Once again, John, I'm going to be done discussing this matter with you. You're an unnecessary fire-cracker, and I would argue it stems from a guilty conscience but that's pure speculation.