>>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.

You're inventing definitions that prolong the furor. As described by MS, a "technical limitation" is an engineered inability to perform some function. It's something MS intended the product NOT to do. The EULA also says that these engineered limits are described in the software documentation. So unless your protestations meet both parameters, I see no merit.

>>1, Fix some compatible problems for the Microsoft Edge and Internet Explorer 11 browser. That could be considered a technical limitation.

It could be considered an unripe tomato as well. Meanwhile the EULA says descriptions of the technical limitations are in the software documentation. So unless you can show "won't work properly in IE11 and later" in the software documentation, there are no grounds (apart from prolonging furor) to call that a technical limitation per their EULA.

>>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.

In which case that needs to be in the software documentation, since that is where MS's EULA says the technical limitations are described. As a strict adherent to the EULA, where are you finding this stuff in the software documentation?

>> That is not outside the scope of what a lot of corporations do when they manufacture products. How many people have bought VHS tapes, etc etc

False equivalence does not trump the commendably plain language in the EULA that says that technical limitations are a) engineered (on purpose) and b) described in the software documentation. It ought to be perfectly clear what MS means without these blizzards of inaccurate distraction.

JR>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.
JR>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.

RH>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.

Refusal to acknowledge the obvious does seem to confirm the motive to create a ruckus. Sorry if calling out inaccuracies is inconvenient for you, but personal attacks are wasted on me. And I remain respectful of MS's plain English that deserves commendation rather than attribution of draconian intent as you would have it.