>I second your amendment. Calling it VFP for .NET would be a big step in the right direction, and it addresses the concerns of the purists who insist that "VFP is not .NET". Personally, I think that is going overboard: a word invented by Microsoft's marketing department can mean whatever they like. There's no need to quibble over semantics. VFP is at least in some significant way a player in the .NET arena, is it not? Be up-front about exactly how this is true, and no one should feel they've been deceived by some shallow marketing ploy. The only thing that MS is marketing is .NET, so let's not be suicidal: VFP needs and deserves a piece of that marketing.
>

My biggest problem with calling it VFP for .Net is that there's an implication that there's a VFP not for .Net, and I'd be hard put to show where the line between the two is drawn.