Gerry,

>snip<
>
>I have never "lost" source code and I don't know anyone else who has. I think that paying ReFox to protect myself from "them" amounts to extortion;

No one is forcing you to buy the product. The problem is the 'them', not the makers of Refox. That's been my point. It's kind of like calling people who make steel bars for prisons extortioners. No, they just make a product to protect someone from a 'bad guy'.

>that's what I have a problem with. You were railing earlier on about "thieves"; well, this is what sets me off. Anyway, someone has already pointed out that "branding" is no longer secure.

Well, sorry you got 'set off' but the fact remains that it's the thieves who force you to have to consider Refox, not the makers of Refox.

>
>And there is no such thing as a "thief", only "fair use" (yeah, right).

Not. <g> What was it they used to say? If you educate a horse thief all you get is an educated horse thief. <g> It's a character issue and since neither you nor I can ever compel someone else to choose what we may define as 'right' we fall back on laws. That's all. What I don't quite get is why the legal types don't get more involved here - international law and all..

>
>You keep coming back to people "whining" about the expense of the lock; actually, it was only me and that was only as a feeble attempt at a "pro" argument ... I had failed to realize that for everyone it was only "chump change".

Well, $400 really isn't a lot of dough for us here in the States. Overseas I suppose one could get a copy of Refox in Bangkok for about a buck. <g>

>
>And if we/I knew how to "build" the protection, we'd do it; If I had the "source" to VFP (since I still have to use _their_ "run-time"), I'm sure I could figure it out in no time. The fact is that MS "protects" the run-time by not providing us with the source; but somehow that seems to be "OK".

But MSFT won't be any more successful at this than anyone else. Goodness knows there are some very smart folks out there who take 'cracking' as a challenge.

>
>As for MS's role in all this, I mistakenly (ass)umed that since there was "encryption" in VFP in the first place, MS had some interest in giving us the facilities to protect our code. Apparently not; it only appears to be some gimmick to provide others with a sideline whereby they can use ReFox to recover all that "lost" code we dummies tend to lose. And I don't think that suing the b*****s is the answer to everything either; but then again, someone else may have the time and the resources and think it fun.

I do think that using every available legal recourse is appropriate. Make it cost.

>
>Perhaps MS would also think it amusing (as would their customers) if I started publishing all the cracks I'm aware of for Word, Access, Project, etc. ... or requested a small "fee" not to do so.

I'd bet that someone else would do the same for free. <g>

>
>Perhaps it is also not "my job" to protect MS (or you) from the "bad guys", if it was in my power(ie. let dog eat dog). Fortunately, I subscribe to a different code of ethics.

What is it? I guess I'm missing something. All I'm suggesting is that we be educated, aware and responsible. Are you suggesting that MSFT has a moral obligation to do something we all know they cannot do?? < s >

>
>And I'll keep "complaining" (and whining) until I think someone is actually listening.

Go for it. <g> It's worked before...