Here's something that JVP posted on profox that he forwarded to me and asked me to post here......

Question: Does requiring the royalty free distributables in VFP to only be used on the Windows Platform amount to illegal tying under 15 USCA 1 (the Sherman Anti-Trust Act)?

I contend it is not. As we have seen, tying, in the classic sense occurs when a vendor requires you to purchase another product based on another product purchase. i.e., if you buy an IBM computer, you would be required to buy an IBM printer because it is the only printer that would work. Note that product bundles are different (buying XBOX and 2 Xbox Games). If you bought an Xbox at Comp-USA, you would have ran into this.

In this case, MS is not placing an all out ban on running VFP on Linux. Rather, MS is simply saying that you have to pay for it. That is why I framed the question the way I did above - by only emphasizing the royalty-free runtimes. This is the crux of the argument and the key to making Fox economically viable to some on Linux. After all, if one cannot distrbute royalty free with the current run-times, Fox becomes a MUCH less appealing alternative.

So then, what is the justification for the EULA and only allowing the distributables to be run on the Windows Platform?

The answer is......subsidy.

IMO, the reason why we are allowed to distribute Fox apps royalty free is because sales of Windows Licenses help subsidize the cost. If you recall, Fox was not always royalty free. The Distribution Kit was $300.00 or thereabouts. This subsidy argument, IMO, is applicable to .NET as well.

FWIW, I don't think MS could dictate where you intall the copy of softare your license covers. Specifcally, if you want to install the DEV version of VFP or office on Linux, not only can you do so, I don't think MS could stop you even if they wanted to. So long as the ratio of 1 lic per machine exists, MS is not harmed and it should not care. To try and stop this, IMO, would amount to MS abusing its Monopoly power. And that is where the distinction rests in this case. That said, I don't think the royalty free runtimes follow in the same vein. I contend that the consideration given for the use of those run times is the windows license that will host those runtimes.

With this in mind, if you want to deploy VFP apps on Linux, you don't get the benefit of the Windows subsidy, and therefore, you have to pay as you go.

On one hand, consumers need to be protected against the abuses of monopoly power. On the other hand, those protections cannot go so far as to allow consumers to get something for nothing.

Questions/Comments????

< JVP >