>Not sure what argument you are referring to here. The bottom line is that you cannot use the royalty-free runtimes on Linux. Therefore, the only way you can run Fox on Linux/Wine - and not run afoul of MS exclusive rights under Sec. 106 of the US Copyright law - is to purchase a full license for each machine Fox will run on.

Are you saying that "US Copyright law", by default, is protecting MS' rights re: Fox and Linux ? I don't see that.

Or are you saying the EUL covers it ? I don't see that either ...

Care to be more specific ?

(In your "absence", these points were hashed over numerous times in this forum. The main observations were that MS has been particularly vague re: Fox and Linux because (a) "tying" Fox to Windows is monopolistic (b) their EUL which states that "Fox MAY only run on Windows" (sic) is sufficiently vague enough as to be unenforceable, at least in the manner in which you choose to interpret it.)

>The fact is, Windows DOES subsidize Fox. That said - MS could very well charge for the right to distribute. Given that it is royalty free on Windows - it is clear that Windows subsidizes that benefit of royalty free distribution.

I don't see that either (subsidization): I can pick up a copy of VB.NET or C# for $100, while a new license for VFP 8.0 can run me $800.

In addition, the VFP team (which consists of a handful of members), is trying its best to crank out as many "versions" as possible ... They've admitted as much that this is one of the "benefits" of not being tied to .NET.

No one really knows how many VFP licences are out there, but even assuming some ridiculous low number like 10,000 "VFP 8" new/upgrade licenses at 300 - $800 a pop and a "handful" of VFP "engineers", the return on investment seems sufficient enough to make your argument re: "subsidies" rather specious.

Granted, that Office and .NET are (probably) generating higher profit margins for MS (tho .NET could very well be a loss leader), I don't see any evidence (based on the numbers) that the Fox line is operating in the red. "Marketing costs" (howl) are certainly not a problem.

And if your whole argument on "subsidies" is based on the premise that MS is using VFP runtimes to sell more Windows licenses (on the assumption that Users are buying more PCs, and therefore more Windows OS) in order to run our wunderbar apps, then I say: Not until I get a piece of the action ...