The unfortunate problem is that (if you've read Ken's messages) Microsoft does not think there has been a change; so there was nothing to tell anybody.

Kind of makes you wonder why they bothered to rewrite it, huh? Oh, well, at least now we have nice clear phrases like "a reasonable time".

I was in the insurance business (I'm in remission now) long enough to know that any ambiguity in a contract will almost invariably be interpreted to the detriment of the drafter. I guess the EULA drafters at MS think they're above all that.

I think part of the problem is that software development companies have been coddled for far too long. Else, how could they possibly get away with agreements basically saying that if the software brings down your entire organization resulting in bankruptcies and lost jobs, they promise to replace the disk. They honestly believe that they can get away with anything at all, and judging from MS's success, I guess they have a right to be arrogant.

Alan

>What has set me off here is the issue of the End User License Agreement (EULA) for VFP8. A lot of messages have already been posted on this issue; others have kindly posted relevant EULA sections for VFP7 and VFP8 which I reproduce here.
>
>In a nutshell, the VFP8 EULA explicitly states that, if you install it as an upgrade, you can no longer use the product that formed the basis for the upgrade:
>
>11.1 Upgrades. To use a version of the Software identified as an upgrade, you must first be licensed for the software identified by Microsoft as eligible for the upgrade. After upgrading, you may no longer use the software that formed the basis for your upgrade eligibility.
>
>The equivalent part of the VFP7 EULA does not seem to exclude the continued use of earlier versions, especially if the new version is considered a "supplement" to the old (bolding mine):
>
>UPGRADES. If the SOFTWARE PRODUCT is labeled as an upgrade, you must be properly licensed to use a product identified by Microsoft as being eligible for the upgrade in order to use the SOFTWARE PRODUCT. A SOFTWARE PRODUCT labeled as an upgrade replaces and/or supplements the product that formed the basis for your eligibility for the upgrade. You may use the resulting upgraded product only in accordance with the terms of this EULA. If the SOFTWARE PRODUCT is an upgrade of a component of a package of software programs that you licensed as a single product, the SOFTWARE PRODUCT may be used and transferred only as part of that single product package and may not be separated for use on more than one computer.
>
>This change means that if you need or want to continue to use the "upgrade basis" product (probably an earlier version of VFP) you need to purchase full version VFP8, or an MSDN subscription. This is considerably more expensive than the upgrade price will be.
>
>I currently have VFP5, 6, and 7 installed on my dev machine; I've bought every available PC platform upgrade since FoxBASE+. I was planning to buy the VFP8 upgrade and install it but continue to use 5, 6 and 7 to support existing apps at various clients. I would not have bothered to read the EULA so I wouldn't have been aware of the change, and that I would be in breach of the EULA by continuing to use VFP7.
>
>What I really object to, is that this is a surprise. It took an eagle-eyed early VFP8 adopter here on the UT to bring this to my attention. I believe MS should have notified the community of this change before it came out here on the UT. Users need to know in advance of actually purchasing product (and being able to read the EULA section(s) in question) so that they purchase the correct version.
>
>There have been other recent examples of Microsoft inserting overly broad or otherwise questionable terms and conditions in product EULAs. I want Microsoft to stop this practice and to be more up-front with its customers.