>Owners may have the right to dictate how their work is "displayed", but they have to be clear about it. MS hasn't made this clear.
>

If there is ambiguity - then it is incumbent on the licensee to get clarification.


>
You keep saying that "Windows subsidizes ..." as if it were a fact. Perhaps our definitions differ but I still don't see the economics to justify that stance.
>

Then you explain why under Windows - it is permissible to use the royalty-free runtimes - and under Linux - it is not.


>
Doesn't sound much different from that of a user who purchases a VFP "app" and then "has to buy" Windows.
>

But you don't have to buy Windows in order to use Fox. You do need windows to use the royalty-free runtimes.


>
IMO, Whil could have (at least) continued his pursuits in the interests of "educational purposes", which IS protected by "fair use".
>

Last I saw, Whil is engaged in commerce as is FoxTalk.


>That was my point: Where is the "subsidy" ?

MS allowing you to distribute royalty-free under Windows.