That is true, and I also think you and hopefully everyone else on these threads understand that this is not just a MS or a software thing. It a universal lawyer thing. I harbor little hope that this will ever change or improve as long as we keep voting for and electing lawyers to political positions. If and when Open Source becomes a more profitable and cost effective option, then we will probably see change in the IT world.

>But the modern EULA requires a lawyer to interpret the leagalese. (Most of us just wing it with a prayer.) When I bought Turbo Pascal (i.e. the Turbo Pascal License) I could read the EULA and be reasonably sure I understood it. It is near hopeless with this modern gobbledygook.
>
>Back in the dim time, inventing new things with purchased software was considered creative, inovative and desirable. Now it is considered riskey, objectionable and illegal because it threatens monopolistic practices.
>
>The problem here is that clearly MS isn't trying to protect its interest in VFP. Rather it appears what MS is trying to protect its interest in Windows at the expense of VFP. I expect there are many compaanies that would not mind if we got their Windows products running under Linux because they are not in the operating system business.
>
>Yes, I try to protect my interests when I develop products for clients, but I consider my interests to be more modest than the empirical designs of many large corporations. I also rely to a large extent on the good will of my clients, which would be hurt if I got too fanatical and legalistic about our relationships.
>
>...Jim