James...

When you redistribute Fox with software you develop - isn't that commerce????? It is clearly a transaction between two entities - you the vendor and the client the customer. You can't say that no value can be assigned to the ESL - since without the ESL - your software would not work. Therefore, your counter-argument about there being a lack of commerce is moot. My comments regarding the Video and Excel were basically red-herrings < bg > - figuring you would go down the road of reselling/commerce. I grant software licenses and the topic of redistribution/reselling is one of the big areas of misunderstanding.

You are right that anything you use for private use - nobody can stop you. You want to alter Excel - and you don't sell or share it with anybody - while it is technically a violation of the license - you probably would not suffer any consequences. The video, as long as you don't go into commerce with the altered version - probably no consequences there either....

However, with regard to the Fox ESL - whenever you distribute that ESL - you are engaging in commerce...regardless of what you charge for the software. If you extend things - now there are different flavors of Fox 2.x running around. Imagine if this sort of thing were allowed? I dare say that disaster would be on the horizon.

>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.

Moral - Don't tell/Don't get caught. Does not sound very moral to me. Heck, my 7 year old knows that. Good morals is a building block of good character. I'll leave it at that....

>>
>>>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.

This is pure conjecture. I know ask you to give some legal precedence that supports your argument here.....
>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 prod
cts.

Once again, your point being that as long as MS does not bring action, it is OK. Violating a license is one thing. Enforcing the license is quite another. Question, If I engage in shoplifting, and don't get caught - using your logic, I did nothing wrong...right????

>>
>>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...
>

But when you redistribute the ESL - it is commerce....

>
>
>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.

But when redistribute the ESL, you are engaging in commerce....

>
>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?

But when you redistribute the ESL, you are engaging in commercce...

>
>>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.
>>

But when you redistribute the ESL, you are engaging in 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?

I don't need to risk anything. The SlowStart solution works just fine for me. Also, I don't comment on software that is not released < bg >.

>
>regards,