>Nancy,
>
>I don't get it.
>
>Why does MS include sourcecode of the wizards ? Just only to let you see how it works ? Nah...... Isn't because you can modify or use some code form it and use it for your own purposes ?
>
The idea is to let you (the developer) modify the tool to fit
your development needs, not to provide you with something you can redistribute as a prt of the application that you develop. There are any number of tools where you're provided some or all of the source code as a developer
because it makes the tool more functional and flexible, but where the tool is intended for the developer to use. A good example of this is SDT; you receive source code not only for the redistributable classes, intended for includsion in your applications, but also for the tool itself, allowing you to modify the developer tool to fit your needs. I can't speak for Doug's reason for doing this, but I'm happy that he does - it makes SDT that much more flexible, and allows you to help debug it if something really wierd starts happening, or an updated version of VFP comes out that isn't compiled p-code backwards compatible, but where recompiling under the new version lets you continue to use it without having to wait on the vendor to recompile the tools and re-relase them. If you happen to be involved in beta testing an intermediate release of VFP at some point, it's nice knowing that the tools you've relied on in the past can continue to be used.
>I've alway's learned, that if you legaly own sourcecode you may used it for other projects?
>
I don't think that's the case - for example, if I buy SBT accounting software with source code, that doesn't give me the right to change a couple of lines of code, turn around, and resell it as
Ed's Ugly Business Tool - our motto is
Our screens are harder to read than our source code! I can modify it for my own uses, but that doesn't give me the right to release it to other people.
>Some time ago we had a simular discussion about whether or not we have the right to patch some known bugs in the Fox2600.esl. It made me wonder why none of the FoxTeam members (Robert Green and Randy Brown) did respond.
>
That's different - we don't have the source code to FPW. The EULA specifically disallows disassembly or altering the binaries. I'd hope that the reason behind it was to prevent us as end-users from making patches on an ad hoc basis, and then expecting Microsoft to support the patched product; we may not know that the harmless little patch we made had some unexpected side effect we didn't intend, it looked OK, but later on, things get downright bizarre as a result. I can disable the seatbelt alarm or bypass the emission control on my car, too, as long as I'm willing to accept the consequences. Unregulated stupidity is self-correcting in most cases over time.
I have no idea whether Microsoft's development team spoke up about this, but I'd expect the legal department, not the development team, to address the issue, since the objection is one based on the contract between the buyer and Microsoft, not necessarily issues involving the technical details of the runtime environment. IANAL (I Am Not A Lawyer) so I'm not in a position to dispute whether the applicable clauses of the EULA are legal and enforcable, and I'm not willing to spend money to find out. For the time being, it's a non-issue, since I have no FPW apps still in use at my office or at client sites where I'm responsible for their maintenance.
>I'll be on the sued side (Like Garret mentioned). If i see a purpose of using the wizards, i'll include it im my product. MicroSoft would have a hell of a difficult job explaining why i may not use the sourcecode i own, here in the Neterlands.
>
You've now stated the reason that I won't release anything as shareware, and why the classes that I post have less functionality than what I use for my production environment. I don't want the headaches.
As a fellow developer, I'd ask you to rethink your position, if for no other reason than to prevent Microsoft feeling a need to not give us source code to the wizards in the next release. They might decide it's easier to reduce the usefulness of the wizards than to litigate.
Ed
