>> Well, if Foxpro does not survive, we would al be hurt, wouldn't we. So,
>> and that is my thesis, we'd better collaborate than keep our secrets for
>> ourselves and make it more difficult to use Foxpro. I'm surprised after
>> all the goodwill that is present on the UT that there is even doubt
>> about this.
>
>it is one matter to help to specific problems and giving away classes you
>spent a lot of time writing - you cannot expect everyone to do this. I know
>I and many other do contribute a lot of code -

... and I, of all people, am very grateful that you did.

but not every utility
>avaialble has its sourcecode included
>and I don't think there is anything wrong with that
>
To be honest, I would not adapt a class if I do not have the source, as a matter of policy. I may end up delivering features to my client that I am not sure I will be able to support in the future, thus engaging my responsibility.

I fail to see what good it does to you to give away (or sell) a utility and keep the source for yourself. But then, there is a lot that I fail to see ...

>and anyway if I give away all my framework now , what will I have to show
>when I will want to publish a book (vbg)
>

Arnon, if there are no programmers in Foxpro left, who will read, let alone buy your book?

Besides, you taught us that a framework is something one, or a team , should develop by him(them)self(ves). For others than the developer, a framework is only interesting as a source of inspiration, an example, as code it is almost almost worthless.