John,

I am NOT entering the debate as to what you can or cannot write on this
forum.

David Martin should not be advertising his product by means of a post on UT,
agreed.

However, it is an interesting idea which raises interesting questions :

1) Could it be that Microsoft will look on this solution favourably
anyway, if only to eliminate the risk of lawsuits (while I do not believe
the recent Kaczmarek lawsuit has any merit, the fact is that it is bad press
and unnecessary time and money expense for Microsoft).

2) If David Martin is purely selling a patch, a quick read of my old
FoxPro for DOS licence does not seem to prevent a user from modifying
the ESL as long as reverse engineering is not involved.

The main, issue, however, is that the product addresses a very real
concern for those FP 2.x programmers who forgot that Year 2000 would
come around some day ! Some have tried to pass the buck, as recent
lawsuits show, but those who have not are left with a BIG headache.

Thus, with all the above in mind, as Evan implies it could well be that
David Martin may find Microsoft extremely favourable to the idea if
he decides to consult with them.

Just my 2 pennies.

Michel.


=================== Original message follows ==========================

>>John, I think a better repsonse would be "Consult with Microsoft"
>
>Why?????? It's clearly a violation of the license agreement. I have that on a pretty good source. Ultimately, I can't stop the guy from selling his product. However, as far as this forum is concerned, and considering I am a Sysop on UT - I fell compelled to let the guy know that his offering is not welcome here.
>
>If you differ in your opinion, please, I encourage you - and Garrett for that matter - to take the issue up with Michel.
>
>Cleary, the point of my post to David Martin - sailed about 2 miles over both yours and Garrett's head....
>
>I know that a Sysop should not be put up posts like this - but posts like this piss me off. You did not contribute during the original thread - and yet - you choose to be critical of my post - which attempts to set the record straight. My original post ignored this whole issue - because I did not realize what the guy was doing. This is my way of getting things squared away from my standpoint. Ultimately, I don't want anybody to thing that I am giving approval - either explcitly or implicitly - to what this company does.
>
>Ultimately, the issue is this - a product is being pitched to the membership of the UT that is actually a violation of the license agreement of FoxPro. As an MVP - I feel compelled to make a statement to this individual. As a Sysop on UT - I fell compelled to make a statement to this individual.
>
>Once again - if you don't like my response, please take it up with Michel - and if you really feel the need - take up the issue with Robert Green. At least I - and only I - took a stand as far as this issue is concerned.... I feel pretty comfortable in my position......