FoxPro On Linux, Drama Ensues

bltfast32 writes "I don't know how many people have been following this, but this is definitely worth keeping an eye on. Whil Hentzen, prominent FoxPro and Linux advocate, has received some heat lately for publishing a HOWTO in the March 2003 FoxTalk issue for running Visual FoxPro 8.0 on Linux with WINE. Of course, the aforementioned heat, is coming from Redmond. Here is a link to a nice summary of the interactions by Whil." That summary mentions the Register article online here. bltfast32 also points to another article which requires registration.

Comments

Wait...

[Sheetrock]

Isn't it part of Microsoft licensing that you must run the software under Microsoft's environment? I haven't used FoxPro since Microsoft bought it out, but I've heard that's a pretty common term with at least some of their EULAs.

I know that Linux and GNU software carries some terms of their own, and I can't imagine any Open Source developer that would be that thrilled if Microsoft pulled a quid-pro-pro and copied our stuff into their stuff. Isn't there any alternative that was actually designed to run on Linux?

Re:Wait...

[Relic of the Future]

MS has certianly used BSD code. And you can check for yourself on your own MS box. Are you familiar with the program "strings", which will find and display all character strings in a file? Try running it on:

1. C:\WINNT\SYSTEM32\finger.exe
2. C:\WINNT\SYSTEM32\nslookup.exe
3. C:\WINNT\SYSTEM32\rcp.exe
4. C:\WINNT\SYSTEM32\rsh.exe
5. C:\WINNT\SYSTEM32\FTP.EXE

(FYI, "Regents of the University of California" = U C Berkley = where BSD came from, and, yes, they encourage this sort of thing.)

Where did you see MS deny they had done this?

(I got that list from this page, since I'm too lazy to boot back to windows to check again myself.)

This has other implications for end users

[sisukapalli1]

Can end users be penalized if they run something that uses statically or dynamically liked VFP code on Linux? Say, I get a screensaver and I decide to run it on Wine, (but for some reason the screensaver uses some VFP code, don't ask me why or how :) ), do I get into trouble?

Or, am I being too paranoid?

S

Good thing MS was convicted...

[setag]

Good thing MS was convicted of anti-trust violations. Now they can't tie thier software to the Windows OS...

I love justice! How about moving away from FoxPro and MS to send MS a message? Like "we won't bow to your oppresive EULAs anylonger".

Re:Good thing MS was convicted...

[thelexx]

"How about moving away from FoxPro and MS"

Speaking as the lone Java guy in an MS/FoxPro dominated shop, this subject is of special interest to me. In a nutshell, no other environment has the native data handling capabilities combined with a syntactically simple (which I think can still run dbIII+ era code!) base language that at the same time is still evolving (mutating?) to allow for some real OO design if you want it combined with a decently friendly dev environ and GUI builder tools combined with a single point of sale and support that makes the PHBs feel comfy. Someone nailed it in an earlier comment when they mentioned that the user community is keeping Fox alive. The users have been so vocal and tenacious that I think MS has said, "Screw it, let's just keep five or ten guys working on Fox and they can do whatever the hell they want with it." Every time a new version comes out, my Fox flag waving compatriot mentions how it has about ten new features that he's thought of since the last version and that he's been wanting, or that replace a hacked together solution the community has come up with, etc. Most of the time I point out that the new geegaws are already in Java, but it's never sufficient to make up for the lack of native data handling or GUI building...ugh. Fox is a product MS got right in spite of their best efforts to kill it.

What about crossover office?

[scharkalvin]

OK what about MS office under Crossover. Does Redmond have Codeweavers in their cross hairs yet?

Re:Illegal Tying

[rocketlawyer]

Actually, it is illegal for someone who has a monopoly in one product to force you to purchase a second product in conjunction with your purchase of the first (monopoly) product.

The logic here is that the monopolist is not allowed to take advantage of their monopoly power in one product to improve their sales in another, presumably to the detriment of the competitors in that second market.

In the case of browsers, MS was found guilty of forcing consumers to buy a browser (a product for which they did not have a monopoly), when the person bought Windows (a product for which Microsoft wielded monopoly power).

In the present case, Microsoft is potentially attempting to force people to buy their monopoly product in conjunction with their purchase of Microsoft's non-monopoly product (VFP). This is not an illegal act. Of course, if you can get a judge to accept some definition of the relevant market, such that Visual FoxPro has a monopoly on that market, then you'ld have an antitrust violation.

Re:The beast that won't die

[Millionth Mogadishu]

I had no idea VFP had such a following. So what is it about VFP that inspires so much devotion among its users?

(An honest question, I really don't know much about it.)

Why Ask?

[Euphonious Coward]

Why are these people waiting for Microsoft to read them their rights? The EULA is right there.

First, read it, and see if it has any provisions of interest to the case.

Next, see if they are actually enforceable under copyright law. Since the license isn't a contract -- you weren't asked to sign it before buying -- they can't take away any rights that copyright law doesn't specifically identify. (Except in Maryland!)

If you want to copy their files to your customers' machines, copyright law is involved. However, if the product was advertised as if that right to copy was included in the product you were paying for, and the package didn't identify restrictions on that copying, then the Uniform Commercial Code says their EULA can't take away whatever you had a reasonable belief that you were getting when you paid. That is, the implied contract of merchantability fitness trumps the written EULA, every time. (Except in Maryland!)

The bulk of most EULAs is wastepaper, just hoping to fool customers into giving up rights guaranteed to them under the law without a fuss.

As others have noted, trying to tie the product to Windows is a specific anti-trust violation for Microsoft since it was formally identified as a monopoly.

I am not a lawyer. (In Maryland, last I heard, the UCITA was passed, overriding the UCC.)