After he and other VFP developers got a little more information from the product manager, it became clear the EULA term at issue was this:

3.1 General Distribution Requirements. If you choose to redistribute Sample Code, or Redistributable Code (collectively, the "Redistributables") as described in Section 2, you agree: (i) except as otherwise noted in Section 2.1 (Sample Code), to distribute the Redistributables only in object code form and in conjunction with and as a part of a software application product developed by you that adds significant and primary functionality to the Redistributables ("Licensee Software"); (ii) that the Redistributables only operate in conjunction with Microsoft Windows platforms...

This left the VFP developers somewhat confused. Even if the "redistributables" - meaning the VFP runtime modules - have to be run on a Windows platform, that would not seem to preclude demonstrations of their project as long as they employed a fully licensed-version of FoxPro on the system. Microsoft refused to say much more on the subject than "as with any contract, you should seek you own legal counsel's advice when interpreting your rights and obligations under the Visual FoxPro End User License Agreement."

Like I've always said about sneakwrap licensing, it's not so much what the "contract" says as what the vendor wants it to mean. But there are obviously bigger issues here than Microsoft's penchant for making dubious legal threats. Does Microsoft really have the right to insist the Visual FoxPro runtimes only be used with Windows? If so, could it do the same thing with Word or Excel by dropping a few words in the EULA for those programs?

And it's not just Microsoft, for that matter. Recall our recent discussions about TurboTax versus books and the reader who bought a Cisco router via eBay. The common thread is technology companies putting restrictions and limitations on how you use the products you purchase. Why can they do it when other industries can't?