>I think the wording in the EULA and MS response to Whil on this is [deliberately?] ambiguous. If they were that explicit, then they would be "openly" tying another supposedly separate product to the Windows OS which is what got them in anti-trust trouble before.
>

There is no tying argument - but for the reason you have choice. Illegal tying arises when you have to use 1 product in conjunction with antoher product. That is not the issue in this case. I know Whil has tried to make this argument - but it is an argument without merit.

In terms of anti-trust law, somebody is going to have make an argument as to how this scnenario hurts competition under Section 1 of the Sherman Anti-Trust Act. I am not sure you can even get to the tying argument unless you can make out a case for anti-competitive behavior. Apparently, Whil fancies himself an armchair lawyer - as evidence by what he has said. Also, the armchair lawyering is catching based on a session at Whilfest that Ted is giving. A word to the wise, be careful what you take from that session. Last I heard, Ted is not a lawyer and what he is doing in that session comes VERY close to practicing law without a license.

A digression yes - but it does go to the motives that are clear - at least to me - in regards to this whole issue.

>I could understand needing a full license for development work but not for compiled apps that only need runtime files. This is another abiguity that may be referring to the Windows Installer technology to install the runtime files. If you were to just copy the compiled app and runtime files to an "app" folder on the Linux box, you would net be violating any EULA regarding the Installer.
>
>They did not use words like "must". They used the word "may". They crafted their response very carefully so as not to sound like they are explicitly tying VFP to the Windows OS to prevent providing more fodder for the groups suing them over tying other software to the OS.
>

Why should MS be so absolute. The fact is, if Whil where really serious about the whole VFP/Linux issue, he would openly challenge MS - back them into a corner - and force them to send a cease and desist letter. At this point, there is no controversey. MS has not told anybody they can't do it.


>Also in their [limited] response to Whil and the VFP community in general, they suggested we consult our own attorney on this subject. So, since you are so close to sitting for the Bar exam... :)
>

One thing you could do is go to court and get a declaratory judgment. That would make you the plaintiff and would force MS to respond. AFAIK, Whil has not done this. It begs the question of why he has not. Again, if he were really serious about this issue, and if he believed he were right - he would get a declaratory judgment. When push comes to shove, he is not going to shell out the bucks to do it. I would be surprised if he does. You never know...


>>You are only allowed to deploy the royalty-free runtimes to the Windows Platform. If you deploy to Linux, you need a full license (the dev version) for each box.
>>

>>>Are you sure about the license for each workstation? I thought the runtime could be used???
>>>

I am positive. If you could deploy the runtimes to a linux box, there would be no issue.

I have a list of questions for Whil a mile long - but unless I confront him in public - he would just ignore them. If anybody is interested, I would be happy to load them up with a bunch of questions for his next user group meeting - whereever that is.