Hmmmm, perhaps it should be asked someplace else? The Justice Dept perhaps???

Regardless, in addition to all of this, I see no 'official' MSFT stamp on Ken's statements. Even though he is an employee, he is not on their legal team, nor does he state 'who' asked him to post the message on the forum. In essence, MSFT could deny any responsibility for Ken's statements down the road too. Not bad on MSFT's part actually...CYA again. They can decide at anytime to allow/not allow deploying VFP8 on any platform other than MSFT platforms, leave their options open to sue down the road, and also cover their b_tts in case someone sues them...

No wonder they make so much money!

>>>
>>>A more interesting question, to my mind, is why MS do not want to simply give a Yes or No answer?
>>
>>Just a guess: There was enough ambiguity in their original EULA that they couldn't just say "No, it's not allowed" (keeping in mind the anti-trust stuff). They still >really< don't want you doing it, so they issue a statement that is also ambiguous, hinting at legal action if you do something they don't like. They're hoping that's enough to keep you from doing it, without having to come flat out and tell you that, yes, the EULA as currently written, may not really deny you from running it under Linux.
>
>Hi Paul. Your guess is as good as any. But whatever the reason is I think its a poor way to do business. To tell your customers that they must go and get their own legal advise rather than simply clarifying your own licence agreement? And then refusing to discuss it further?
>
>Whil Hentzen was not asking for a discussion - just an answer to a straight forward question - plain and simple. But apparently this was asking too much.