>>Uh, well, maybe?
>>Unless you resell the foxpro executable, I doubt there is a problem. In any event, how is MS to know unless you tell it?
>
>Uh, well, wrongo James.... And with regard to the second sentence above, I hope we do not cross paths in business. Lets just say this does not reflect to well on your character..... I'll leave it at that....

Whoa! My character is just fine, thank you. I am expounding a completely moral and legal point of view -- it just disagrees with yours/Microsoft's. And you sir, are arguing ad personam, a cheap shot at least since Socrates.
>
>>If the MS license requires that the foxpro executable remain unaltered, I doubt it's enforceable (if only on public policy grounds -- since modifying your own executable does not harm MS in any way), not to mention that if its broken and MS does not fix it, you have every right to fix it yourself. If MS actually did bring an action in this regard, the resulting public relations disaster would bring far more damage to MS that it could hope to repair by preventing customers from fixing their problems with MS products.
>>
>
>We are talking about the ESL file - not EXE's you create. And no, you don't have the right to fix it yourself. Whether MS brings action against somebody or not isn't the issue. If your point had merit, could'nt you then hack the Excel EXE and sell it has James Excel Version 1.0??

No you can't. A point I made perfectly clear in my original statement. There is a considerable difference between altering the product and putting it in commerce and altering the product for your own use. More about that below...



Here is another good case. Folks that owned a video store in the Mid-West cut out the 11 seconds of the movie Titanic in which there was nudity. The movie sued them - and won a restraining order. Yes, the folks were still selling the movie - for the same price. What the did however, was alter the product.

Yes they did. They they put the altered product in commerce . See remarks above.

You see - even with a video - you don't really own the video. You really just purchase the right to view the video.

Wrong again. If I purchase a video, I can alter it all I want. I can destroy it, I can burn it. I can edit it, I can remove parts of it -- provided I then do not resell it. Are you getting it now?

>Notice when you buy a video, you cannot charge money to view it. Certainly, if you really owned it - you could do whatever you wanted. Once again, I think I have made my point here.

Naw! Actually you are confusing several issues. I can't charge someone to view it because that would be a commercial use. Again, its a matter of putting the product into commerce.
>
>>I have heard from several folks at MS that it is NOT going to revise 2.x in any way, so I strongly doubt the rumours that the remaining problems in 2.6 are going to be fixed by MS. Obviously, then, they will have to be fixed by others since they certainly need to be fixed.
>>
>
>I'll rely on a quote from Jim Booth here... Those who know don't talk. Those who talk - don't know. That said, I am keeping my mouth shut on this.

Lets make this simple. I'll put money on the fact that MS is not going to revise this product. How much do you want to risk?

regards,