Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

FoxPro On Linux, Drama Ensues

Posted by timothy on from the till-lotus-won't-run dept.

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.

27 of 399 comments (clear)

  1. No surprise by Gefiltefish11 · · Score: 4, Insightful


    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!

    1. Re:No surprise by Descartes · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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.

    2. Re:No surprise by arkanes · · Score: 4, Insightful

      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.

    3. Re:No surprise by Catiline · · Score: 4, Informative
      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!).
      --
      Do you like Japanese imports?
    4. Re:No surprise by Archie+Steel · · Score: 4, Insightful

      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.

      --

      Reminder: find a new sig
    5. Re:No surprise by Dr.+Zowie · · Score: 4, Insightful
      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.

    6. Re:No surprise by Crispy+Critters · · Score: 4, Insightful
      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.

    7. Re:No surprise by RoLi · · Score: 4, Insightful
      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.)

  2. Wait... by Sheetrock · · Score: 4, Interesting
    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?

    --

    Try not. Do or do not, there is no try.
    -- Dr. Spock, stardate 2822-3.




    1. Re:Wait... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

      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.

    2. Re:Wait... by Col.+Klink+(retired) · · Score: 4, Insightful

      > 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.

      --

      -- Don't Tase me, bro!

    3. Re:Wait... by Relic+of+the+Future · · Score: 5, Insightful
      "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?

      --
      Those who fail to understand communication protocols, are doomed to repeat them over port 80.
    4. Re:Wait... by Glock27 · · Score: 4, Insightful
      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. :-)

      --
      Galileo: "The Earth revolves around the Sun!"
      Score: -1 100% Flamebait
    5. Re:Wait... by theLOUDroom · · Score: 4, Insightful

      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.

      --
      Life is too short to proofread.
  3. This has other implications for end users by sisukapalli1 · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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

  4. The beast that won't die by The+Bungi · · Score: 5, Informative
    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.

    1. Re:The beast that won't die by The+Bungi · · Score: 4, Insightful
      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.

  5. I would have to say by greechneb · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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!

  6. Good thing MS was convicted... by setag · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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".

    1. Re:Good thing MS was convicted... by thelexx · · Score: 4, Interesting

      "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.

      --
      "Gold still represents the ultimate form of payment in the world." - Alan Greenspan, 1999
  7. Hmm, must be a Fark reader. by Mononoke · · Score: 5, Funny
    FoxPro On Linux, Drama Ensues
    How long until we get a Boobies link?

    ps: Fb- is the father.

    --
    NetInfo connection failed for server 127.0.0.1/local
  8. What about crossover office? by scharkalvin · · Score: 4, Interesting

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

  9. Re:Wait...Here's the EULA by burninginside · · Score: 4, Informative

    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

  10. Re:Wait...Here's the EULA by The+Bungi · · Score: 5, Funny
    You just viloated the EULA by posting the EULA.

    *rimshot*

  11. Can GM stop Ford cars from using its oil filters? by StandardCell · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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?

  12. Why Ask? by Euphonious+Coward · · Score: 4, Interesting
    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.)

  13. bullshit by RelliK · · Score: 4, Insightful
    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.

    --
    ___
    If you think big enough, you'll never have to do it.