>>I honestly don't think, especially in something called a "clarification", that you are correct. In a clarification they could just as easily said, and been very clear "...may only be operated in conjunction...".
>>Accordingly, I think it is very clear that what they are saying with the current clarification is nothing more than 'noise' specifically designed to encourage people to parse it the way that you have.
>
>
>Jim, isn’t this exactly what is just a little (a lot) disturbing about this post and indeed the entire EULA - Linux issue? Clearly the VFP community has raised an important question and is simply looking for clarity one way or the other from MS. Is it unreasonable to want clarity?
>
>Instead of simply answering Yes or No to what is clearly a Yes or No question MS legal choose to just reiterate the very sentence that’s causing the confusion in the first place. And then Ken has (clearly) been instructed to “not comment any further”.
>
>In other words the answer is “you figure it out” which leaves the VFP community no further in this issue at all. Personally, I think that’s a cop-out and unprofessional because the MS legal department do not want to commit one way or the other for fear of ... what?
>
>Can you imagine your client asking you to clarify a sentence in your service agreement, for instance, and you reply "Get your own legal opinion. I'm not going to comment."?
>
>A more interesting question, to my mind, is why MS do not want to simply give a Yes or No answer?

I agree fully. A very sad display by one of the world's largest companys and undoubtedly our most important.