Whil;

Well stated! It might be possible for Microsoft’s Legal department to interpret the meaning of is legalize to have one meaning today and another sometime in the future. However, trying to play “arm chair attorney” is not a comfortable position for anyone to be in.

Tom

>Hi folks,
>
>Hey! Remember me?
>
>Attached is an email I've just sent to Ken Levy and other members of the Fox team at Microsoft. It pretty well sums up what happened last week, and should clear up misconceptions on anyone's part. If not, well, ask away. I'll be gone Thursday and part of Friday in Denver, but will be around the rest of the time.
>
>I was at a conference last weekend, and heard this great line: "Bill Gates seems to me to be the type of person you'd invite over for dinner, and he'd take all of the mashed potatoes for himself." But even better was this one:
>
>"The future is already here. It's just not evenly distributed."
>
>We live in pretty interesting times, eh?
>
>Whil
>
>
>* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
>Ken:
>
>Last Wednesday you called me to tell me that the article in FoxTalk about
>running VFP on Linux was prohibited by the EULA in both VFP 7 and 8. You
>didn't provide additional details, and given that you interrupted me at
>dinner, I didn't have the wherewithal to ask you to explain more.
>
>However, I asked you to have someone on MSFT's legal staff confirm this to
>me in writing. I did this for two reasons. First, I don't believe that you
>have the authority to legally interpret Microsoft's legal documents, nor do
>I think you want to try to legally bind Microsoft to a contractual position
>while you hold a job as a marketing manager.
>
>Second, given that you were trying to impart critical information that, in
>your words, couldn't wait until I got home yesterday (Monday), I wanted to
>make sure that I accurately understood what you were saying. It's so easy for a rushed conversation to generate misunderstandings.
>
>Yet , that's exactly what has happened.
>
>The article discussed how to run VFP on a machine running Linux as a
>development environment, and was explicit in reminding the reader that they
>would need to have the proper licenses. You stated that this is a violation
>of the VFP 7 and 8 EULA. However, in the next 48 hours, you then told both
>Ed Leafe and Ted Roche that as long as the licenses were in order, this
>activity is indeed permitted by the EULA.
>
>Well, I'm confused. Why did you tell me one thing, and then them something
>completely different? Perhaps one of us has misunderstood. Three separate
>voice conversations - very easy to happen. But this apparent contradiction
>is exactly why I wanted this matter settled explicitly in writing.
>
>To date, I have not received anything. Perhaps my request slipped through
>the cracks; perhaps you didn't understand during our rushed conversation
>exactly what I was asking for.
>
>As I understood from our abbreviated conversation, you said the activities
>described in the article were prohibited. But after reading the EULA a
>number of times, I can't see how you come to that conclusion. Nor can a
>number of other folks with whom I've talked. To wit:
>
>1. Your statement to me indicates that it was illegal for an individual
>to run the development version of VFP 8 on a machine running Linux even
>if the developer has a license specifically for that machine. It is our
>opinion that this is permissable by the EULA, since hubbub surrounding
>the EULA only makes reference to redistribution.
>
>2. The EULA seems to prohibit the distribution of certain Microsoft
>components on non-Windows operating systems - specifically, the files listed
>in REDIST.TXT, which include the MSMs. However, it is physically possible to
>distribute and run an executable created by the VFP project manager in
>conjunction with the VFP runtime DLLs, without needing to bother with the
>MSMs. Thus it is our opinion that deploying VFP apps to customer
>workstations or servers using a developer created EXE and the VFP runtime
>DLLs, regardless of the operating system, is legal.
>
>3. In a bigger context, it appears that Microsoft is tying the use of
>applications (their developer tools) to their operating system. Given the
>legal difficulties that Microsoft has encountered over the years, we don't
>believe that this is legal, and thus we don't believe that this is the
>intent of the EULA. Rather, we believe that some overzealous, but
>inexperienced, legal staffer drafted a poorly worded EULA, intending to
>ensure that the appropriate licenses are in place for applications as well
>as operating systems.
>
>To repeat my request, and to be explicit about it:
>
>Please have an individual authorized by Microsoft Corporation to speak on
>its behalf with respect to legal affairs provide me, in writing, the
>following clarifications about the VFP 7 and 8 EULA. The specific questions
>for your legal department to answer are:
>
>1. Can an individual developer run Visual FoxPro 8.0 on a machine
>exclusively running the Linux operating system, assuming that the appropriate VFP license was paid for, for development purposes? (In other words, that a copy of VFP was licensed strictly for that machine.)
>
>2. Can an individual deploy VFP apps to customer workstations or servers
>that are running Linux using a developer created EXE and the VFP runtime
>DLLs (without using Installshield or another mechanism that relies on the
>MSMs)?
>
>3. Is the EULA restricting the manner in which the developer creates and
>deploys an application for a customer - meaning it prohibits an installation
>that bypasses the MSMs?
>
>I do not want you to get stuck in the uncomfortable position of trying to
>act as Microsoft's counsel when you do not have the authoritiy to do so. You
>certainly don't want to attempt to make legal committments on Microsoft's
>behalf! However, I welcome your offer to intercede and make the appropriate
>contact with Microsoft legal so that they can put what we can and cannot do
>in writing.
>
>As you know, the computing industry is in difficult times, and all
>players are doing what they can to make ends meet. Deploying VFP
>applications on Linux brings a new standard of application quality to
>that platform, and lets Visual FoxPro developers exploit their
>advanced skills in new markets. It would be disappointing to find those
>skills going to waste. Please help clarify what is and is not allowed.
>
>I need to hear back by Monday, April 21. If I don't, we'll go ahead with
>the assumptions that (1) we can run VFP 8 on Linux, and (2) we can deploy
>applications on Linux via EXEs and DLLs.
>
>Thanks!
>
>Whil
>
>Fox is Everywhere
>Hentzenwerke InterGalactic: http://www.hentzenwerke.com
>
>
>* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *