>Christian,
>
>>>So the issue at hand is not a theoretical best world practice, but a reference to the actual law and the society we live in. Microsoft's point of defense would be exactly that as well, and not some morale question if clicking Agree would have bound that person to the agreement. The lawyers would look only in respect to the clauses in the extend to how they can be validated according to the current law, not even >>to the law that was in effect of the writing of the contract. It will not be a question about contract but a question about who of the two parties is right in whateever they do according to the ruling.
>
>Even the assertion that reverse engineering voids the EULA, has no merit. It's been quoted in this thread twice, but here's the direct quote from the EULA again (emphasis mine) :
>
>>>You may not... reverse engineer, decompile or disassemble the software, except and only to the extent that applicable law expressly permits, despite this limitation...
>
>IOW the EULA agrees with you that if law allows it, you are not breaking your word or the EULA if you reverse engineer in compliance with the law. So this really has nothing to do with "you broke your word when you clicked OK and then reverse engineered" but "in what circumstances does the law allow reverse engineering."
>
>For this purpose, law includes Copyright statutes including fair use, DMCA and precedents. If any of those specifically or even arguably allows (for example) bug fixes if the vendor refuses, you're right that it's defamatory to call others crooks by ignoring the right specifically acknowledged in the EULA.
>
>As an example, if a Windows update ever were to break VFP, or if VFP returned unusable C(0) for new VARCHAR MAX SQL Server field type, or couldn't display previews using the new embedded format in Windows 10: my understanding is that unless the vendor offers a remedy in a reasonable time frame at a reasonable price, software compatibility (including bugs preventing proper use) and security flaws are both 100% legal justification to reverse engineer to remedy same, under both Copyright and DMCA in the US.
>
>I'm reluctant to say more because I have made this same point at least 5 times over the years every time these ideas resurface, but the responsible party simply ignores the highlighted section above and perpetuates the furor, or uses sophistry (e.g. asserting that NET is the remedy offered in reasonable time frame at reasonable price) to perpetuate the furor.
>
>FWIW, I say bravo to MS for including that highlighted section. Others leave out that part, then assert EULA breach just like Rick, which justifies cancellation of license, which puts their target in harm's way of Copyright and other statutes with no damages minimum to land you in court.

Thanks, good explanation. That makes a lot of sense, and also shows that people in responsibility are not that stupid after all. The examples also make a lot of sense. I am pretty sure on the long term this situation will prevail.