>>The most annoying thing about it is that Micro$oft has intentionally made this extreamly vauge. There is no question that this was done on purpose by their army of lawyers.
>>Furthermore, they REFUSE to claify - they won't even answer your questions about this.
>>Ask Ken Levy - "Can I run my VFP application on Linuix, yes or no?" and I'll bet you anything that he will refuse to answer the question. As matter of fact - no one at Micro$oft will answer the question. Now maybe that's changed a little bit with this new EULA and someone at Micro$oft *might* actually have the guts to tell you NO, but I doubt it.
>>Of course Micro$oft needs to have EULA for VFP, but perhaps it would be a good idea if they gave us one that actually said what we CAN and CAN NOT do. This one does not tell you. The only thing I see that could protect us (VFP developers) if Micro$oft decided to come at you, would be to represent yourself in court, then be sure to file at least 15 to 20 motions a week, file a countersuit, and bury the court in so much ridicilious work that the judge handling the case finally steps in and says enough is enough.
>
>I guess this may be decided by trial and error: if VFP9 can run under another OS, than it's not technically limited to windows, hence the limitation doesn't exist, Q.E.D.

I think the real key to this is the phrase "The software is engineered to allow you to use it in certain ways."

If it's a bug, you can work around it. If it's by design, you cannot. I still say that if you use an SQL Server backend for the express purpose of getting around the limitations of dbf's (2 gig size limit for example), then you are in violation of the EULA, since VFP is engineered with that limitation, and it can't be considered a bug.