FoxPro & Wine :)

[Patrik Stridvall]

> Dimitrie O. Paun wrote:
> > On April 22, 2003 01:17 am, Dan Kegel wrote:
> > 
> >>It may not be, but at least it brings it into the realm
> >>of Microsoft moves we've seen before. (cf. MFC dlls, which are
> >>never distributed with Windows itself, and may legally
> >>tie all MFC apps to run on Windows alone, if the MFC EULA
> >>holds.  Or so I recall.)
> > 
> > 
> > And the question is: is this enforceable?
> 
> And the answer is: if it isn't, neither is the (L)GPL.  Why 
> would MS not 
> be able to place restrictions on distribution of their own 
> copyrighted code?

With risk of rekindling the LGPL debate, I have to agree.

Both the Wine LGPL issue and the Microsoft "DLL" redistribution
issue above have one thing in common: 
"Somebody is both trying to have the cake and eat it."

I have a long time, invain it seems, been trying to argue that 
copyright law neither:

1. Should (from a sane public policy point of view)
2. Intends (from what copyright traditionally is meant for)
3. Does (from a strict, by the letter, analysis on the law)

support the view that it is allowed to both "have the cake and eat it".

Very, very simplified. You have basicly have two choices:
1. Distribute your work (or part of it) for free
2. Distribute your work (or part of it) for a fee.
if you choose (1) because you for some reason doesn't think (2)
is to your advantages you have no right to complain that things
didn't work out as you hoped.

In the Microsoft Visual FoxPro it is quite obvious that demanding a
fee for the "runtime" would reduce the number of developers 
using the product, so they didn't. Now they have to live
with the consequences...