>>The VFP ODBC driver already provides free access to VFP data. So, MS is already doing "bad marketing".
>
>Possibly, but two wrongs don't make a right, do they?

The presumption of course is that providing the ODBC Drivers for free was wrong.


>
>>In this context, how is the OLE DB provider different from the ODBC driver?
>
>Ask the Fox Team.

This is actually a fair question, and since you have decided to take up this debate, you should take a crack at answering it.

>>MS's policy is inconsistent with its other free downloads

>Hardly. Its only inconsitent if you refuse to look at any of the details besides the fact that they are all OLE-DB providers. If you take a glimpse at what they are providers to, you should notice that FoxPro is definitly in a different class of databases available from Microsoft.
>

You contend that if the Fox provider was given away for free, the world would have free access to a powerful database. Believe it or not, decisions like these are rarely made on issues of cost alone.

>>Besides being inconsistent it's also non-enforceable, since any VFP owner can create a "Hello, World" app that includes the driver and give it away (or charge $1). Where's MS's revenue in that?
>
>I don't see why this is relevant. The fact that there are low lifes that cheat and steal should not discourage a company from selling a product. Record companies haven't just given up as you suggest MS should do and start handing out their product for free, even though its hardly enforcable to stop someone from burning a prirated CD. Besides, if only 5% of the users pay, thats more money they would get if they gave it away for free. This sounds like the start of a new thread that I'm not interested in at the moment.
<

Low lifes? If one is playing by the rules and is compliant with the license agreement, how is that cheating? I see it as playing by the rules that have been set by the vendor.

Mike, why can't you understand that you are defending an indefensible position?