Hi Jim,

>I take my cue from the mainframe world (as I usually do) and can tell you that >it was/is *common* for firms to "hack" (we called it alter or revise) >PROPRIETARY code under license to make it do what we want/need it to do. This >might be done at the source level or at the EXE level (via patch). The only >restriction we had with the vendor was that we had to prove that a malfunction >occurred in the UNMODIFIED version to get support for the repair.

Isn't comparing the Mainframe world to the PC world like comparing apples and oranges? After all, with mainframe software, the upgrade process is often painful. I am not saying that upgrading in the PC world is always easy - but it is a lot easier than in a mainframe scenario. In the Mainframe world, you had no options. The software you used was usually the only alternative you had. In this case, real alternatives exist. BTW, if a problem existed with Excel 5.0 with fast pentiums, would you also advocate that MS fix that as well??? Where does one draw the line? Clearly - this is a complicated decision.


>
>There is no doubt in my mind that Mr. Edgar is correct here and that it is you who "could not be more incorrect" and who's "conclusions, well, they have no basis in fact".
>

Jim, that is your opinion - and you have every right to express it. However, one's opinion - and what is factually/legally correct may be - and are often - different....