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

No surprise

[Gefiltefish11]

To anyone who has followed MS's track record (as highlighted so vociferously here on /. over the past few years), this should come as no surprise at all.

Even if it may result in more use and sales of their product, the name of the game is control and MS values that, it seems, more than potential profits. In fact, it probably costs them more dollars for their lawyers to draft various emails and notices than it would if a few Linux nerds run MS software. In fact, the latter probably costs them zip.

Thinking about this a bit more, it seems that control is the name of the game in most of industry --MPAA and RIAA certainly included!

Re:No surprise

[TopShelf]

Control, however, is extremely important when it comes to brand reputation, and is perfectly justifiable in many cases. Consider a software vendor who has released a product specifically for a certain class of operating systems. It would be entirely reasonable for them to restrict the use of that application (via the EULA) to avoid deployment on other OS's, due to the unpredictable issues that will pop up.

Now, there may well be another decision process about whether to include more operating systems within the product's scope - this goes back to the level of user demand and the resources it would take to make this happen (cost/benefit). As pertains to this issue, would expanding FoxPro to run under WINE be a good business decision for Microsoft? Probably not - most of those customers are looking for FoxPro itself, not the operating system - which means they'd pick Windows as a default and probably not complain too much because it's FoxPro that they're familiar with and want.

Re:No surprise

[Descartes]

In fact, it probably costs them more dollars for their lawyers to draft various emails and notices than it would if a few Linux nerds run MS software

are you kidding? This is 100% about profits. Microsoft knows it makes some great products (like FoxPro) but the majority of their market share is in the OS, which is not nearly as well made. Microsoft knows if they let people start using their good products on other OSs that they'll lose their OS market share. Why bother using a buggy, and insecure OS when you can get a much better product for free, assuming you're willing to put in the effort to use linux.

Micosoft is not just worried about a few linux nerds, they're worried about companies doing the math to figure out the difference in cost between paying someone to get their system working in linux and the cost of paying for MS licenses. As a linux nerd I have no personal need to run MS software and potentially violate their EULA, but I know that companies are willing to pay me to do it if it helps their bottom line.

Re:No surprise

[arkanes]

No, it's not. Theoretically, an EULA is a legally binding document - you're saying it's reasonable for a company to be able to (legally) require you to use a specific OS, whether or not it's required from a technical standpoint (it's obviously not, in this case, since it works). That's absurd, especially when the company in question is an OS company. It's tied directly to all the old arguments about monopolies and abusive behavior. They're perfectly justified in refusing support to anyone who's trying to run it under a non-authorized system, but bringing legal force to bear on someone who is doing so, or even helping other people do so, is utterly ridiculous.

Re:No surprise

[Catiline]

In fact, it probably costs them more dollars for their lawyers to draft various emails and notices than it would if a few Linux nerds run MS software. In fact, the latter probably costs them zip.

No, geeks cost Microsoft big dollars -- and not when you apply *AA style piracy maths. When Microsoft begins their push to .NET based application servers where you don't own a copy but instead pay "rent" for the software (monthly? Hourly? Per use? All of the above?), every user of Open Source will be a lost stream of revenue. Under such a scheme (where you pay constant fees for using MS software but OSS/Linux remains free=beer), I know a whole bunch of people who would find it very favorable to switch to Linux purely for that financial aspect (as it is a problem of a completely different magnitude to forge a valid server login versus pirating standalone programs).

Also as people become less capable of performing their own system maintainence thanks to Digital Rights Manglement and Palladium protection of the OS (ever performed a 1:1 hard drive swap or motherboard upgrade under Windows XP?), they will find more and more value in the free=speech (libris) aspect of OSS as well. Yes, we Linux geeks don't cost Microsoft any money at all... except in lost sales of upgrade packages (and in the future, lost rent on their software). And that sum of money, according to the *AA piracy maths, is vast indeed (why, I myself must have cost them $1B thanks to my own non-MS use and advocacy thereof!).

Re:No surprise

[TopShelf]

Since the EULA is a legally binding document that the user is entering into willfully, an OS restriction could easily be a part of that. (Now, whether shrinkwrap license agreements with more fine print then a mortgage are a good idea, that's another story)

From Microsoft's point of view, are they just supposed to take a few techies word for it that FoxPro "works" under WINE? Let's say, for example, that a bug in FoxPro is found that represents a security risk - MS can use Windows Update and other means to get a patch out to their Windows-based customers, but what do they do for the WINE-rs? That's a loose end that I certainly wouldn't want to deal with...

Re:No surprise

[cayenne8]

Can anyone quote in the the EULA where it states that you can't run/distribute this software on other OS's besides windoze?

Re:No surprise

[Nevyn]

Since the EULA is a legally binding document that the user is entering into willfully, an OS restriction could easily be a part of that. (Now, whether shrinkwrap license agreements with more fine print then a mortgage are a good idea, that's another story)

It's not obvious that the above is legal though, for a normal company. For a company that owns/controls both the OS and product, it's even less likely.

Let's say, for example, that a bug in FoxPro is found that represents a security risk - MS can use Windows Update and other means to get a patch out to their Windows-based customers, but what do they do for the WINE-rs? That's a loose end that I certainly wouldn't want to deal with...

So what about the business with a firewall that doesn't allow machines to connect to microsoft's update servers ... are you saying that MS should be allowed to say you can't firewall their products? What about if you run more than one service on that machine, and the update breaks the other non-MS service ... should they then be allowed to require you to update?

Most companies solve this problem by saying it isn't supported on platforms, they don't support. Not that it is not allowed to use it on platforms they don't support.

Re:No surprise

[Archie Steel]

Well, in that case, they should just not offer any support for it. That's seems like a simple, reasonable (and legal) proposition. Here's the product: if you don't use it within such framework, then we're not responsible if something goes wrong. Except that in this case, of course, MS isn't responsible if things go wrong even if you use the software within the suggested framework. So it is a control issue - they just want to continue to impose their monopoly, like they've done in the past.

Re:No surprise

[Dr. Zowie]

It would be entirely reasonable for them to restrict the use of that application (via the EULA) to avoid deployment on other OS's, due to the unpredictable issues that will pop up.

Actually, no, it wouldn't be. Yes, attempting to regulate use of the application is one way to solve the problem. No, it's far from the best way.

In California in the mid-1990s, there was a problem that insurance companies were getting hit hard by large court awards to the families of motorcyclists. It seems that a lot of motorcyclists were getting killed in collisions with cars, where the cars were at fault. The solution that was adopted was to require all riders to wear motorcycle helmets -- in other words, to assume a paternalistic attitude toward the riders. The correct solution (in the sense of being minimally intrusive while solving the problem) would have been to legally limit the liability of car drivers who hit helmetless motorcyclists.

Likewise, restricting the operating system is a bad move from the point of view of the customer: a better solution (for the customer) is just to refute any warranty or support for other platforms than Windows. The only reason to try restricting the output environment is to preserve Microsoft's monopoly, at the expense of the customer.

Re:No surprise

[Crispy Critters]

Control, however, is extremely important when it comes to brand reputation, and is perfectly justifiable in many cases. Consider a software vendor who has released a product specifically for a certain class of operating systems. It would be entirely reasonable for them to restrict the use of that application (via the EULA) to avoid deployment on other OS's, due to the unpredictable issues that will pop up.

I see the propaganda has succeeded and mind control is now complete.

It is not the slightest bit reasonable ever for a company to be able to control how you use their product after you have given them money in return for the right of such use.

To give a concrete example of why this is wrong, for those who don't find it obvious, imagine a company wants to distribute these executables to a restricted set of identical Linux boxes with the configuration carefully tested. There is no danger of damaging the reputation of the original framework; in fact this could only improve its reputation.

Your argument is the same one that would make all mp3 files illegal, because they may be related to illegal copying, or the outlawing of the DeCSS code because it might be used to make a forbidden copy.

Maintaining a remotely free society demands extreme scrutiny of such examples of prior restraint, restrictions based on a hypothetical damage with no proof that it ever had or would actually occur.

Re:No surprise

[4of12]

It would be entirely reasonable for them to restrict the use of that application (via the EULA) to avoid deployment on other OS's, due to the unpredictable issues that will pop up.

Would it?

It seems strange to me that software EULA should be so encumbered with these kinds of restrictions if one makes a comparison to automobiles.

In that case, the manufacturer doesn't restrict you to only drive on certains roads, or toll-roads, as the case may be.

Rather, it's understood, and usually described in the user's manual, that the automobile works best and has been test to work well on paved hard-surfaced roads. If you drive off-road, or on a non-recommeded road, then you assume responsibility for the consequences. Various warranties and legal protections are disclaimed.

Software should be treated similarly. You assume the risks and consequences if you use the software in unintended ways, but there shouldn't be some arbitrary restriction on how you may use it.

The only valid reason for tying Visual FoxPro to a particular OS like Windows is in the case of a systems integrator that assumes extra risk by tying together all of your systems and guaranteeing the whole kit and kaboodle will perform.

For MS to claim it is a systems integrator in this regard is, at the least, far-fetched.

Worse, their actions could be viewed very plausibly as a conflict of interest.

Re:No surprise

[IdleTime]

This is not so much about VFP as it is a testing ground for what will come from MS.

I don't think MS cares if VFP apps were to be run on Linux. The whole ordeal is more about how they are thinking of changing the EULA so that no program written for MS Windows can legally be run on anything else than Widnows.

What they are trying to do here is to ban all Windows executables from beeing run on an OS other than Windows. MS sees Linux as a long term threath and they want to do something about it. They can't buy it and kill it. They can't FUD it away. They can't compete on prize or quality. What is there left? The answer is easy: Keep people away from the opportunity to run any for of Windows programs under Linux. How? By changing the EULA and enforce it!

If they succeed with VFP, more products will follow suite and soon the EULA's will prohibit the programs from running on anything else than MS approved OS'es and we all know that MS will never approve of Linux.

This has far more grave consequences than what the VFP developer community has seen. It is the start of locking down Windows.

Re:No surprise

[fermion]

It is certainly no surprise or anyone that has used FoxPro for many years. FoxPro itself is beautiful database technology that MS bought to acquire the incredible Rushmore technology. The MS (jet?) technology was crap by comparison.

Equally amazing was that MS supported FoxPro for Macintosh and Windows, and even more incredibly, they kept it running on both platforms when the created Visual Foxpro(VFP). Now, credit where credit is due. VFP is an incredible RAD environment. It is very easy to code complex business models and rules. By comparison, Access is a toy. It did not have the power and it did not have the cross platform capabilities. Access was fine for the manager who wanted to create a database of employees that spent too much time in the bathroom, but not for much else.

I think they were hoping that with the full integration of Rushmore technology into Access, which was maybe the 95 version, people would migrate. Did not happen. VFP was cross platform development(with the exception of report development) and runtime. It was fast, it was simple, it was effective. Access was not.

Now, if MS was in businesses of provided tool for customers, MS would have continued to support VFP for Windows, Mac, and today we would probably have a VFP for Linux. But, alas, MS is the business of maintaining a monopoly, and as such they made VFP a windows only product.

Which is why the do not want VFP to run in Linux. They want their tools to run on Windows only. They already fought the battle to make VFP single platform, They don't want to fight it again. (As an aside the viewpoint of MS can be seen by their definition of cross-platform, which means the application can run of different versions of windows, which, to an outside observer, is reasonable a single platform.)

Re:No surprise

[RoLi]

Since the EULA is a legally binding document...

Well, anywhere where even the most basic consumer protection laws exist (= everywhere outside the USA), a contract that is agreed upon after the purchase was made is invalid and completely void.

Also, some courts in Germany have ruled that Microsoft has no right to legally bind an OS to a computer, the consumer must have the right to resell computer and OS-license seperately, so I guess they wouldn't have the right to bind FoxPro to Windows even if the EULA was legally binding.

But even in the USA, the pathetic remains of consumer protection should prevent Microsoft from legally binding Foxpro to Windows: Anti-Trust laws are pretty clear on that.

Let's say, for example, that a bug in FoxPro is found that represents a security risk - MS can use Windows Update and other means to get a patch out to their Windows-based customers, but what do they do for the WINE-rs? That's a loose end that I certainly wouldn't want to deal with...

This is so ridiculous, I can't believe it. Are you working for MS? This is such obvious nonsense - if that were true, MS would have to force Windows update on everyone, make sure everyone has an Internet connection and force every update down the throats of customers. (Yes, MS would certainly like it that way, sure.)

Re:No surprise

[RoLi]

Thats fine when you're not a bona fide monopoly.

Wrong, it's not fine. One of the basic principles of free societies (certainly not the USA, but almost everywhere else) is that a vendor does not have the right to dictate how his goods have to be used.

Yes, this includes Microsoft binding OEM-Windows to certain computers, yes, in Europe and most parts of the world selling OEM-Windows and computers seperately is 100% legal.

The biggest mistake the US DOJ made was calling MS a monopoly. This just opened the gates to the meta-discussion about wether MS is a monopoly or not which overcovered the real problems. Thankfully, the EU courts call MS what they clearly are: Holding and misusing a dominating position. Maybe the MS-bootlickers and MS-is-a-monopoly wankers can finally crawl back under their respective rocks.

Re:No surprise

[msborg]

Also, the EULA requires that you distribute the files with a EULA that is at least as restrictive as the Microsoft EULA. It doesn't, however, require you to enforce that EULA if your client breaks it. So give the runtimes to your client, let 'em install them on thousands of desktops running Linux/Wine, and then let them be. The client has no contract with Microsoft regarding this, so Microsoft can't sue them. And you've upheld your end of the EULA, since you passed on as restrictive a EULA as Microsoft imposed on you.

Re:No surprise

[cyberformer]

are you saying that MS should be allowed to say you can't firewall their products?

Microsoft probably will add that as a restriction in some of its EULAs, if it hasn't already done so. It may not be legally binding, but a few well-placed campaign contributions will change that (UCITA). With Palladium, they will even be able to enforce it automatically: software simply won't run until Microsoft's central database confirms that your license is still valid.

Re:No surprise

[msborg]

This has far more grave consequences than what the VFP developer community has seen. It is the start of locking down Windows.

Couldn't agree with you more. I have lots of clients who run my VFP apps on desktops, and they have to pay for a Windows license for each machine. If they replaced them all with Linux/Wine systems, they could run their app without having to pay Microsoft a single dime in license fees. That's what they are afraid of - people who aren't locked into the Windows OS to run their businesses.

Re:No surprise

[Sj0]

You don't seem to understand the difference between a EULA, a README, and a disclaimer.

Here's the deal:

If you break the EULA, you no longer own the software. Read it. They can take away your license with extreme prejudice if you break any of the stipulations within.

If you ignore a README, you're a little more ignorant, but nothing happens. MS certainly can't take away your software!

If you ignore a disclaimer, you can't bitch at MS if Foxpro stops working, or if WINE won't let you print, or any such thing. They'll just say "sorry, what you did isn't supported, so we don't have to help you!" if you call, just like they've done in the past.

Now. If you don't want to be liable if something happens to foxpro? Which do you put it under? the README if you're lazy, the disclaimer if you're serious, but not the EULA unless you're nuts.

Also, you don't seem to be familiar with Windows update. Let me enlighten you. Windows update updates windows. It doesn't update Office. It doesn't update Visual Studio. It doesn't update Freelancer or Halo or Flight Simulator or anything else. In fact, for anything except windows or office (which has it's own officeupdate site), you're more than likely going to have to download patches like everyone else out there (except that once you get rid of the nifty auto-detection, you'll find that MS has some of the most labyrinthine patch sites on the internet).

Re:No surprise

[kamend]

So there you go, "all MS end users should wear helmets".

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...

[Anonymous Coward]

Microsoft's TCP stack was based on one of the *BSDs, and IE had its roots in Mosaic. There is no GNU-bitching about this, imagine that.

Re:Wait...

[Col. Klink (retired)]

> Isn't it part of Microsoft licensing that you must run the software under Microsoft's environment?

Wasn't MicroSoft convicted for antitrust violations? Isn't "tying" a violation of antitrust laws?

> I know that Linux and GNU software carries some terms of their own...

The GPL has absolutely no "use" restrictions. If you do not plan to redistribute GPL software, the GPL has absolutely no effect on you.

Re:Wait...

[Relic of the Future]

"I can't imagine any Open Source developer that would be that thrilled if Microsoft [...] copied our stuff into their stuff."

Then you don't understand many Open Source developers. You do know that Window's TCP stack is based on BSD, right?

Re:Wait...

[Glock27]

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.

Lots of free software runs on Windows - gcc + toolchain, Mozilla, the Gimp, emacs and on and on...

This strikes me as ridiculous, but there is a nice alternative - don't use FoxPro. Perhaps initially painful, but in the end quite rewarding! ;-)

Isn't there any alternative that was actually designed to run on Linux?

I'd suggest one of the many DBs available for Linux + JDBC + Java 1.4x + NetBeans/Eclipse. :-)

Re:Wait...

[Greg Lindahl]

You do know that Window's TCP stack is based on BSD, right?

I've seen that said, and denied by MS. Are you sure you aren't repeating bogus info? Certainly the MS TCP/IP stack had many bugs not in the BSD stack.

Re:Wait...

[theLOUDroom]

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?

Actually, they'd be thrilled (assuming the stuff is GLP'ed). That would mean the Microsoft would have to release the source code to whatever application they used it in.

Also, no one is talking about pirating MS software here. They're talking about using legally purchased copies of it on a non-MS operating system.

Re:Wait...

[gordie]

Sorry AC, anyone that knows anything about wine and the wine project Wine HQ knows that "Wine is not am emulator!" per the wine project FAQ

Re:Wait...

[hmckee]

Sure that could be part of their EULA, but this will bring up the age old debate, who really owns the software after it is sold? What rights does the user have when running it?

This could become really tricky for Microsoft and Mono when and if .NET starts to become big. Can Microsoft prohibit .NET applications from running on non-MS OS's? It seems rather foolish for them to start pulling stuff like this if they plan on inplementing their CLR on multiple platforms.

Also, it could be the case that the libraries used by VFP are not freely redistributable to other machines unless that machine contains a licensed version of VFP. Yes, I read the summary article, but that point was still not clear.

As for Open Source projects, I think most developers would be happy to see MS using their projects as long as they released any modified source code. Imagine that a MS operating system release with only Open Source software on top of the OS.

Re:Wait...

[frodo from middle ea]

And then you do know that the BSD license explicitly allows this kind of work. If you are using a product licensed under BSD type license then you CAN develop based on top of it and release your product as a closed source/proprietory application.
If you have any issues with that then you can take them to the ppl. who release their products under BSD* licenses.
Any body in M$ position would exploit the situation.

Re:Wait...

[msborg]

It is a recent addition to the EULA for Visual FoxPro. Prior to version 7, there was no such restriction. There is no technical reason for this restriction. The only explanation is to quash the viability of Linux on the desktop.

Re:Wait...

[Anonymous Coward]

You do know that you're wrong, right?

Windows 3.1 had a TCP/IP stack based on BSD, but that isn't the case for 32-bit Windows versions. Since then it is just a few utilities like ping and tracer[ou]t[e] that use BSD code.

It also wasn't Microsoft that used it originally; it was licensed from a third party that ported much of the BSD stuff to Windows.

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.)

Re:Wait...

[Greg Lindahl]

Which word in "TCP Stack" do you not understand?

User level programs are not the TCP stack.

Re:Wait...

[_Sprocket_]

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.

You'd be shocked to find out Microsoft does indeed sell products that include applications licensed under the GPL.

Re:Wait...

[pyrrho]

winsock .h headers have the Berkeley header at top explaining parts of the code are from BSD.

If you have a Windows SDK installed, you can find it.

Additionally, it seems they grabbed some socket using applications as well.

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

The beast that won't die

[The Bungi]

Wow. I'm impressed by this. VFP is like the elderly uncle that just won't die and vacate the den. The more Microsoft tries to kill it, the more momentum it gains.

The VFP user community is of course mostly responsible for this. Sites like UniversalThread have "kept the flame" going for many years, much to the chagrin of Certain People at MS that would very much like the thing to die and go away. This is the difference between VB (which got effectively killed with .NET) and VFP - the people who use it. They're a vociferous, dedicated and almost fanatical bunch. But they've gotten their way every single time.

I remember the endless threads back in the mid 90's on Usenet about how VFP was on the way out, to be replaced by VB and VC++. They're on their 8th version now, going strong. VB only got to 6, and MS never really solved its problems (VC++ is a different issue - it's actually used by Microsoft so they can't touch it). Guess who's laughing now.

And I doubt this time things will go differently.

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.)

Re:The beast that won't die

[swb]

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

I think the unflattering answer is there's a shitpile of small business applications written in Fox Pro by enterprising consultants that work well enough for the business owners who don't want to spend any more on them than they have to. They get sold periodic "updates" so they work with their new PCs sporting new OSs, but that's it.

I think the reason they never get ported to anything else is that nobody else can untangle the code in a timeframe that would make them any money, plus if they want periodic updates like new forms or something, FP is pretty easy to design them with where a web app or something would be a PITA.

Re:The beast that won't die

[The Bungi]

swb has a bit of it. Certainly there are thousands of VFP apps out there running in small and large businesses that are hard to port and get rid of (VFP redefined, IMO, the term "spaghetti code", even more so than VB).

But there's also a bit of what makes some software (BeOS, Amiga, vim, etc.) grab and keep a smallish but loving group of users that are willing to fight for their [tool|OS|whatever] and hold on for dear life.

VFP is unique among MS products in that regard. VB had a faithful following, but it was always too big and too loud and too contaminated by weekend "programmers" to have an effect over the company. VFP folks - they're the Mujahedin of Microsoft users. Trust me, you don't want end up surrounded in a newsgroup by six angry VFP knights in shining armor with issues and a grudge. Talk about flame wars.

I mentioned those Usenet threads in my original post - I'll eat my crow now but back then I thought they were on crack for being so vocal about a tool that everyone else saw as dying (like BSD *grin*). Plus, the "inside word" from Microsoft at the time (~1997) was that VFP was indeed going to be killed. Haha - Not.

That's life, I guess.

I would have to say

[greechneb]

That this was only a matter of time. I have this bad feeling before long, any microsoft products, or any software company that is in bed with microsoft will be checking during install to make sure that there is a valid windows license.

There will probably be a line in the EULA stating: It is illegal to run this program on a non-windows operating system.

I sure wouldn't put it past microsoft. I'm sure there would be ways around it, but then microsoft would have a great way to take anyone to court using wine to run windows software on linux.

- I'm very happy wearing my tinfoil hat!

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.

Re:Good thing MS was convicted...

[MikeMo]

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.

Poop. Check out http://www.4d.com. It's been around almost as long as FoxPro, runs on Windows and Macs, is at least as easy to use at FP, and is definitely evolving. There's an incredible developer community, plugins, built-in web server, you name, you got it.

Here's the PR for the upcoming release: http://4dtoday.com/summit?c=detail&id=23

It seems to have everything (I think they're hinting towards Linux). The last release added automatic support for Web Services via SOAP/XML.

Re:Good thing MS was convicted...

[Phil Wilkins]

No, actually, Fox is a product that someone else got right, which was then bought by MS.

Even more amusing, is that they bought FoxPro, so they could kill it, and force everyone to use Access.

Re:Good thing MS was convicted...

[idontgno]

WARNING: IANAL, but...

The behavior in question isn't "bundling", it's "tying". And there is a notable and telling litigation history against M$ in the area of anti-competitive tying of non-OS products to its OS. (See this nifty summary of the Caldera v. Microsoft case of 1996-2000.)

(There are those that argue that the "non-OS product"--Windows 3.1--is actually an OS component. Those folks are, of course, wrong. At the time of MS-DOS 5.0 and Digital Research's DR-DOS 6, Windows was no more a mandatory OS component than a 3 1/2" floppy drive was.)

So, Microsoft has made grabs at non-OS-space with its OS products. Yeah, I know, they settled without admission of guilt. The fact they settled is the moral equivalent of an admission of guilt, legal weasels notwithstanding.

Windows 3.1 was tied, for no valid technical reason, to Microsoft's MS-DOS. This solely to weaken competitive OS products. Sound familiar?

In fact, what you're saying is that EVERY MS product (from Flight Simulator to Age of Mythology) is tied to Windows because most are Windows exclusive. That is not what the courts had in mind.

The reason most M$ applications seem to be "Windows exclusive" is because they can't be run natively on other platforms. That's a valid technical reason for OS-exclusivity. However, if someone (e.g., the WINE Project) successfully engineers an OS or a compatibility layer which is API-compatible with Windows, and therefore makes the technical reasons for OS-exclusivity go away... then... M$ has no say in the matter. If the MS products can be run on non-M$ OSs, then M$ has no legal standing to prohibit that. M$ cannot legally mandate Windows in order to run M$ applications. THAT is illegal tying. And THAT IS what the courts had in mind.

Hmm, must be a Fark reader.

[Mononoke]

FoxPro On Linux, Drama Ensues

How long until we get a Boobies link?

ps: Fb- is the father.

What about crossover office?

[scharkalvin]

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

Illegal Tying

[Rob Riggs]

Isn't it illegal for Microsoft to tie any of its software products to its OS?

Re:Illegal Tying

[Alien Being]

Yes. The penalty is dinner with no dessert.

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:Wait...Here's the EULA

[burninginside]

END-USER LICENSE AGREEMENT FOR MICROSOFT SOFTWARE IMPORTANT-READ CAREFULLY: This Microsoft End-User License Agreement (''EULA'') is a legal agreement between you (either an individual or a single entity) and Microsoft Corporation for the Microsoft software product(s) accompanying this EULA, which include(s) computer software and may include "online" or electronic documentation, associated media, and printed materials (''SOFTWARE PRODUCT''). By installing, copying, or otherwise using the SOFTWARE PRODUCT or any UPDATES (as defined below), you agree to be bound by the terms of this EULA. If you do not agree to the terms of this EULA, do not install, copy, or otherwise use the SOFTWARE PRODUCT; you may, however, return it to your place of purchase for a full refund. In addition, by installing, copying, or otherwise using any updates or other components of the SOFTWARE PRODUCT that you receive separately as part of the SOFTWARE PRODUCT (''UPDATES''), you agree to be bound by any additional license terms that accompany such UPDATES. If you do not agree to the additional license terms that accompany such UPDATES, you may not install, copy, or otherwise use such UPDATES. SOFTWARE PRODUCT LICENSE The SOFTWARE PRODUCT is protected by copyright laws and international copyright treaties, as well as other intellectual property laws and treaties. The SOFTWARE PRODUCT is licensed, not sold. NOTE: The terms of a printed, paper EULA which may accompany the SOFTWARE PRODUCT supersede the terms of any on-screen EULA found within the SOFTWARE PRODUCT. 1. LICENSE TO USE SOFTWARE PRODUCT. 1.1 General License Grant. Microsoft grants to you as an individual, a personal, nonexclusive license to make and use copies of the SOFTWARE PRODUCT for the sole purposes of designing, developing, and testing your software product(s) that are designed to operate in conjunction with any Microsoft operating system product. You may install copies of the SOFTWARE PRODUCT on an unlimited number of computers provided that you are the only individual using the SOFTWARE PRODUCT. If you are an entity, Microsoft grants you the right to designate one individual within your organization to have the sole right to use the SOFTWARE PRODUCT in the manner provided above. 1.2 Documentation. This EULA grants you, as an individual, a personal, nonexclusive license to make and use an unlimited number of copies of any documentation, provided that such copies shall be used only for personal purposes and are not to be republished or distributed (either in hard copy or electronic form) beyond the user's premises and with the following exception: you may use documentation identified in the MSDN Library portion of the SOFTWARE PRODUCT as the file format specification for Microsoft Word, Microsoft Excel, Microsoft Access, and/or Microsoft PowerPoint ("File Format Documentation") solely in connection with your development of software product(s) that operate in conjunction with Windows or Windows NT that are not general purpose word processing, spreadsheet, or database management software products or an integrated work or product suite whose components include one or more general purpose word processing, spreadsheet, or database management software products. Note: A product that includes limited word processing, spreadsheet, or database components along with other components that provide significant and primary value, such as an accounting product with limited spreadsheet capability, is not considered to be a "general purpose" product. 1.3 Storage/Network Use. You may also store or install a copy of the SOFTWARE PRODUCT on a storage device, such as a network server, used only to install or run the SOFTWARE PRODUCT on computers used by a licensed end user in accordance with Section 1.1. A single license for the SOFTWARE PRODUCT may not be shared or used concurrently by other end users. 1.4 Visual Studio-Effect of EULA. This Section 1.4 also applies if the SOFTWARE PRODUCT is Microsoft Visual Studio, a suite of development tools and other software programs (each such tool or software

Why?

[Anonymous Coward]

I understand wanting to move away from MS to Linux for certain customers. My question is why in the world would you (a consultant) sell your customers an MS solution running under emulation in a Linux environment? Bite the bullet man, learn to code your applications using tried and true Linux tools. Don't cling to the past if, as you say, your goal is to stop using MS products. I'm no MS fan, but as a once VFP developer (now ASP.NET) I can understand the love for it.

Re:Wait...Here's the EULA

[The Bungi]

You just viloated the EULA by posting the EULA.

*rimshot*

dBase and FoxPro on Linux

[Pejorian]

Hey anyone know if you can run dBase Plus (the latest visual-OOP-BDE version of the even more ancient and venerable dBase line) on Linux thru Wine?

I can guarantee that if you can get dBase running, dBase Inc. will shake your hand, not slap your wrist. They've been promising a Linux version for ages, and if they could find the time, they would have released one by now...

Can GM stop Ford cars from using its oil filters?

[StandardCell]

No, not if they fit. It seems like a ridiculous assertion.

Yet this is precisely the same problem we have here with VFP and WINE. Erosion of rights in using a product. Maybe in future EULAs, Microsoft will prevent the use of the install CD case to hold open doors in offices with BSD servers.

Dumb? Yeah. But where will it stop?

Call the DOJ

[Mr. Underbridge]

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.

And an illegal one, but they'll wait until the DOJ raps their knuckles on every issue until they C&D. This is "leveraging their OS monopoly" if I ever saw it.

So if I were the guys trying to run FoxPro on linux, and assuming M$ doesn't decide to play nice, I'd fire off a comment to the people in DOJ supposedly enforcing this crap. It worked for getting the Explorer Uninstaller more prominent positioning.

Re:foxpro

[questionlp]

Visual FoxPro, while it has it's own data format, is also a language that is supposed to be very good as handling data manipulation. Think of it as a combination of Perl and BerkeleyDB or Perl and dBase.

Visual FoxPro also supports ODBC and can connect to a SQL Server to get and post data. Beyond that, I don't know much else about it.

NO!!! NO NO FOXPRO ON LINUX!!

[Exantrius]

I'm dealing with freaking fox pro right now, it blows goats!

PLEASE DON"T LET IT GO ON LINUX!!! I'LL HAVE TO START DIGGING DITCHES FOR A LIVING!!!

*head explodes*

Maybe I should read the article now.

Re:NO!!! NO NO FOXPRO ON LINUX!!

[jellomizer]

I have done FoxPro development. And my opinion it is the best of the microsoft languages. (probably because it wasnt origanally made by microsoft). And perhaps FoxPro is the wrong language for your applications. FoxPro is like MS Access on steroids. It has its place, And Cx, Java, Perl, Python, and most any other language dosent do well what FoxPro does well. Which is easly make interface for database information and minipulate database info. Plus FoxPro for Linux can help a lot of companies convert to linux where they are now stuck on Windows because they have invested $100k in their custom FOX apps.

Re:Can GM stop Ford cars from using its oil filter

[HaeMaker]

The difference it that you don't "license" a GM oil filter, you "buy" it. Since software is licensed they have more leeway in their licensing terms.

FoxPro on Linux?

[Anonymous Coward]

My first reaction to this article was "Who in their right mind would defile Linux by running FoxPro on it?".

My second reaction was, "Then agan, who in their right mind would run FoxPro on Windows either?"

How i see this

[trinity93]

First of all FoxPro and access have a lot in common in that they both basicaly do the same thing. Most companies do not use its internal database features, but use the form generation tools to create database frontend applications to larger, more robust server based database systems.

Linux lacks a robust RAD tool for createing such frontends. A lot of companies rely on ever changeing data access forms that change with each project. Access and FoxPro enable them to do this with little hasel. This is why Access and FoxPro refuse to die. At the same time this is one of the things preventing Linux from being used in a corprate desktop enviorment. This also explanes why most database apps in linux are witen as web based applications. Linux needs a peice of software that works like Access and FoxPro. Abbras (i think its called) that is included in Star Office is close, but it dosen't alow for createing stand alone apps in the way Access and FoxPro do.

Basicaly, the point im trying to make is that Microsoft never thows a fit about anything unless there is a reason. By getting FoxPro and Access to run on Linux these guys are threatening Microsofts hold on the corprate market and they know it. This shows that if a alternitive or clone of FoxPro or Access was created it would hurt Microsoft quite a bit. I support anything that prevents Microsoft from controling the corprate working enviorment. If no one wants to create a subsitute to FoxPro or Access this this will have to do. By supporting these guys in there endevor you are putting another nail in M$'s coffin.


Trinity

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.)

Re:Can GM stop Ford cars from using its oil filter

[pnatural]

IANAL, but it seems to me that the Doctrine of Fair Use (or whatever it is) applies in this case.

If I buy it, I can use it as I damn well please as long as I don't infringe on the copyright.

But if I've learned anything, I've learned that copyright law is twisted and complex, so I'm probably wrong. Can anyone (say, a real lawyer?) attest to the legal aspects of this?

Re:foxpro

[Anonymous Coward]

Visual FoxPro version 8 is being released right now, and version 9 is in development.

VFP is targeted at serious developers, where Access is targeted at end-users. It has a much steeper learning curve, but it pays off when working on large projects. It's much faster than VB or Access when working with tables with millions of records.

It became a fully object oriented language back in version 3, picking up features that VB is only just getting now. We essentially went through the VB to VB.NET style change with version 3.

If our company had 100 users, we'd look at an SQL server with a VFP front-end. But with only 30 users, SQL server wouldn't give us any better speed (or anything else) to justify the expense.

We've also sold apps written in VFP - no SQL server needed.

I expect this is why Microsoft doesn't advertise VFP - Unlike VB.NET, the user doesn't need to buy SQL server.

Re:WINE requires a license of Windows to run

[Christianfreak]

You're (sort of) wrong.

The Wine team has reverse-engineered lots of the libraries so you don't need the DLL files. However, at least when I was messing with Wine a lot nothing much worked unless you had the Windows libraries.

I'm hoping that has changed now. Assuming some of the crossover code has worked its way back in to the main Wine tree then it has. I use IE under Crossover (when I'm feeling masiocistic) and there isn't even the hint of Windows on here.

bullshit

[RelliK]

Consider a software vendor who has released a product specifically for a certain class of operating systems. It would be entirely reasonable for them to restrict the use of that application (via the EULA) to avoid deployment on other OS's, due to the unpredictable issues that will pop up.

False. They can say "this product is designed to be used on system X; we will not support it if you use it on system Y". However, nothing gives them the right to demand that you use the product on system X, just like GM cannot demand that you have your car serviced only at Goodwrench. That is an abuse of monopoly, plain and simple.

Re:What?

[samael]

So some non-DB HR monkeys put together a badly documented database, therefore the language is at fault?

That doesn't make much sense to me.

Shocking news!

[kwiqsilver]

From The Register article:

"It appears that Microsoft is tying the tie its applications (developer tools) to their operating system," Hentzen told us.

(I assume he means "trying to tie", quite the tongue twister).
I am just dumbfounded! I can't believe Microsoft might be trying to leverage its market share.

Next he'll tell us that they're more concerned with sales figures than with producing a quality product.
It's just unbelievable that somebody could think that way...

(Is there such as thing as too much sarcasm?)

Re:Why ?

[SmurfButcher Bob]

The real reason that Fox rocks...

Imagine, if you will, a linked list.

Imagine it is infinitely threaded.

Imagine that the threads can be dynamic.

Imagine that the "keys" in the thread can be based on data that doesn't exist (completely, or at all) in the list itself.

The big ol problem faced by SQL based stuff is that it's record-set centric. It works really, really well with gobbs of data, and sucks at individual cases. And god help you if you wish to diverge right in the middle of one of those cases.

Fox is the exact opposite. It loves individual records. It loves recursion. It loves relations. It loves fractional relations. It loves relations that change on-the-fly, record by record, self-transmogrifying-based-on-other-relations that are also changing. If you can express it, it'll work, and it gives you very tight control of the record order.

The primary benefit is simply a matter of "The Big O". Because you're so close to the table structure, Fox can typically get close to the lovely O(n) or n.ln(n) we all desire. Most of the same crap in SQL will end up being n^2, because you cannot make the same assumptions. Consider any operation involving a Group By clause.

The downside is that Fox is file-based. Open your 5GB table on a disk you've got locally, you're fine. Open it across the network... snore... but even that can be beaten, with remote calling of Fox com objects. But at that point, you're probably better with SQL.

Re:Can GM stop Ford cars from using its oil filter

[Crispy Critters]

Maybe in future EULAs, Microsoft will prevent the use of the install CD case to hold open doors in offices with BSD servers.

What is happening here is that companies are using EULAs to essentially write their own laws. If these agreements are considered legally valid, then governments are in effect having their courts co-opted to help in the enforcement of the laws (EULAs) written by the corporations.

In theory, we are protected from this by the freedom to avoid the product if we don't like the EULA, or by anti-monopoly laws if no choice is available. If the anti-monopoly laws were being enforced.

Re:Lets be more precise..

[SmurfButcher Bob]

Your observation that there's some problem with the language is probably incorrect; put a moron on a keyboard, you'll get a moron's results. I had a client, long ago - their previous guy wrote some crap, and all times had to be entered in military format. The reason he gave for this - and it exemplifies my point quite well - was that C could not be made to convert times from military to AM/PM. *** Could NOT. *** And he meant it, I'm serious.

If noone understands you, what you do, or why you do it, it could be that you're a genius. More likely, though, it's because you're an idiot.

Dunno if these are "good", or not. But,

I use fox to provide an interface to our Nortel PBX. It grabs the cdr events, the 30-second stats, the hourly ACD stats, tracks what agents are at which phones, who took or made what calls, periodically bounces phone numbers against a dozen reverse-lookup sites to see who our users were calling, watchdogs the various AUDs & DTIs, etc and sends me a txtmsg if things go awry, and watchdogs the actual inbound/outbound traffic patterns to figure out if any of our T1s go grey (meaning our provider faulted them, which won't cause an error on the switch for some strange reason). It watches the ACD queues and compares it to current staffing levels. If we're getting slammed at 3am, it'll txtmsg the manager-on-call, and tell her that the night crew needs a few telecommuters to hop on for an hour. That, and it proxies the serial TTY console so's that I can telenet to it from anywhere, even from home using an IPaq. That's a good app.

Writing another one that compares ESRI shape files. Each quarter, GDT sends us a map with every known street in the state. We have polygons, etc, all across the state that were drawn relative to the positions of those streets, and their intersections. GDT sends us a new map, and some of those streets (and intersections) move. Our polygons don't, and that's A Bad Thing(tm). Since GDT will not release changelogs, Our Little App walks every feature in our current release, finds or guesses where it is in the new one, deals exhaustively with name changes, and tries to suggest additions to our polygons to maintain their spatial relationships with those new features. That's a killer app, when it's done.

After reading a good Dilbert about "moving our database to an e-mail based system", I wrote one as a joke. In fox. More scarey, someone wanted to use it.

I've written too many parsers in Fox. LR, LL, whatever. Not the fastest, but great for harvesting.

One of the more fun projects was about Telephone Poles. I used pure fox to provide a GUI, featuring a pole. The user would drag-n-drop features onto the pole - transformers, wires, whatever. User would then add any quantified defects found. Lastly, core samples would be input from various heights, and the software would calculate the various moments, % remaining strengths in different directions, etc, and decide if the poll needed repair or replacement. The user could them spit out a list of poles needing work, etc.

The neatest one was a cut optimizer for a window factory. It'd invasively rip the day's work orders out of their proprietary software, figure out what parts where needed, rip the available inventory, merge it with any known scraps left over from previous runs, and spit out cut-patterns onto disks, that'd produce the least waste. The disks would then be stuffed into some semi-automated cutting saws, etc. I say this was the neatest, because it wasn't all linear cuts - this was a window factory, so I had to handle glass also. At the end of the run, any useful scraps were tracked for later use, and inventory would be deducted from the proprietary's files. It really pissed of that proprietary vendor, because they offered an optimizer for about 40 grand... and they ran theirs head-to-head against mine on several hundred batches, mine beat them by almost 65% on linear, and nearly 18% on planar (glass). ROFL, considering I wrote it in exactly 14 hours and 12 minutes... I