>>Yes - and odds are a million to one your right...
>
>Based on what? You have no way to quantify this.

It was just an expression (as I'm sure you realized..but probably won't admit now)

>FWIW, I think the odds of me being right are better than a million to 1.

Based on what? You have no way to quantify this. (or was this just an expression?)

>but one can't say for sure unless one has the accounting information in front of them - which we don't - but yes it's the only thing that makes sense.
>>
>
>Accounting implies finance...which is not what the problem is about. I tried to tell you that before - but I guess it did not sink in...


Well you had said all this...
"....
It is not a matter of Finance...rather, it is a matter of economics and law. If you read the license scheme, and employee a little common sense, it leads to the only plausible conclusion as to why the royalty free runtimes can only be distributed in windows.
I'll try and tart it up a little more...
Non Windows - MS does not get $ - therefore royaly free runtimes not allowed
Windows - MS gets $ - therefore royalty free runtimes allowed
......."

So I guess you didn't understand. If you taking about if MS does or does not get $ - that implies finance (if you do or do not get money - that's finance), which in turn impies accounting...which of course bring us all the around the circle to the begining....YOU DO NOT HAVE knowlege of Microsoft's accounting do you? Ok then you can not say that VFP is subsized by windows can you? No all you can do is make what is indeed a plausible conclusion, but still speculation on your part.

>>
>But how significant is this anyway? Are there other MS programming languages where the license doesn't work this way?
>>
>
>For tools that have a royalty-free component - they all work the same way.

Riiiiiight - so its not significant anyway - correct? If all the developer tools MS puts how work the same way...what makes it so special to point out the VFP falls into this category as well?