>Actually, I think what he means does VFP 8 check for a running version of VFP 7 (which I suppose it doesn't) so compliance is auto-enforced within his organization. I don't think he was beating Ken up on this. He was just saying (I think) that he wants to remain in compliance and he wants to know how much work it will be.

Yes, precisely, and thank you for jumping in, Kevin. I've worked through the initial surprise and emotional grumbling of the new EULA, as well as the budgeting issues, by now (the increased vfp8 budget has been approved as of this afternoon), and I can live with the new EULA. The money does not come out of my pocket, anyway, so why should I make a big issue of that? The remaining practical issue is only license management.

I will obviously find out about the technical features of the new EULA in a few weeks anyway, but that will be too late to set up a sound "containment" policy, if there is no built-in EULA enforcement. It'd be a big help to know how to plan a license-adherement strategy *before* a bunch of users get their hands on the product, and I'm left in a bind as to how to contain it, with possible EULA violations floating around my agency. Both me and MS have something to lose by my *not knowing* about a technical enforcement, and I have nothing to gain financially by knowing what to expect just a little ahead of the shelf-release.

To add, I don't really want to appear like a major idiot at my agency, by publicizing in advance a vague or incorrect license strategy. I know, that's my problem - but I will indeed remain silent until I know exactly how to set a strategy.

So, a few weeks of advance notice would be nice to set up compliance rules, and will make no difference as to how I make the vfp8 purchases that are within my budget control scope.

If you (at MS) want to check your records out on me, feel free, and if you want to give me a confidential private reply, that's fine, I guarantee I will keep it confidential. A private reply here would do fine.

I'm not quite sure I see the point of keeping this a secret, anyway. Everyone will know in a few weeks, and if they're concerned about whether there is technical enforcement, so as to get by "more cheaply," they will do so anyway, I will venture to guess. So what is the point of hiding this aspect, exactly? (that question can be considered a rhetorical one)

Me, I can be trusted on EULAs, because I personally have Inspector General agency license-audits to contend with, and if I'm not in full compliance, I will get in *major* trouble. Even if I'm totally innocent, it's a big ordeal being investigated. I've been through this process once, and it's not a Bahamas vacation. So you can bet the farm I'll follow the EULA, if that's an MS concern. In fact, I will order and pay for my vfp8 copies first (unknowing of the technical enforcement issue), and then after this you can tell me the answer, if you want. We could do this easily, if we are expeditious, and MS will accept my order now.

In fact, one reason I'm posting this "technical-enforcement" question is in case I *do* get investigated, I will now have some ammo to show I indeed tried to establish a license strategy, but was rebuffed or ignored.

Perhaps this straightens out my question better?