>> 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
>> ...
>I guess you never use any ActiveX control in your projects as well?
>

The good old Dino in me .... Anyway, ActiveX is another story because it is not VFP dependent. And if I were to use ActiveX, I'd check the supplier.

>I can understand and respect others who prefer not to do so

I too respect those who choose not to give the sources (do I have a choice?) , understand is something else.

>
>> >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)
>> 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.
>
>the book/framework remark was just a poor attempt at humor but while you
>mention it
>while I do think believe that you should develop your own framework
>but I wouldn't call a fully tested working code "almost worthless". (g)

Sure! Fully tested working code. Is there such a thing these days? :). But a good description would be more effective no?

Marc