Tek-Tips is the largest IT community on the Internet today!
Members share and learn making Tek-Tips Forums the best source of peer-reviewed technical information on the Internet!
-
Congratulations Chriss Miller on being selected by the Tek-Tips community for having the most helpful posts in the forums last week. Way to Go!
64-Bit VFP 1
- Thread starter Michael42
- Start date
- Thread starter
- #21
Lets reach out to him. Let him know there is a considerable US demographic that sees it potential. Plug him into tek-tips etc. Maybe even create a tek-tips VFP10 forum if it warrants it and can be useful. I'd do it but I'm not as deep in my VFP knowledge as many of you. I would definitely help and help get the work out if it comes to fruition here.
Btw, you can see all of Chen's posts here.. and his profile
Ez Logic
Michigan
Ez Logic
Michigan
See, this is healthy conversation about it now...
And like Griff, I did the same thing... just backed upward on the URL list until I got to the home page. So his web site doesn't link back easily if you navigate to a direct page, but it doesn't diminish what he's done, or make it less useful because someone put a link into a non-navigable page.
That was my point. This is perception issue, he's actually quite forthcoming in who/what/where they are.
-S
Best Regards,
Scott
ATS, CDCE, CTIA, CTDC
"Everything should be made as simple as possible, and no simpler."![[hammer]](/data/assets/smilies/hammer.gif "[hammer] [hammer]")
And like Griff, I did the same thing... just backed upward on the URL list until I got to the home page. So his web site doesn't link back easily if you navigate to a direct page, but it doesn't diminish what he's done, or make it less useful because someone put a link into a non-navigable page.
That was my point. This is perception issue, he's actually quite forthcoming in who/what/where they are.
-S
Best Regards,
Scott
ATS, CDCE, CTIA, CTDC
"Everything should be made as simple as possible, and no simpler."
Olaf Doschke
Programmer
Mike still has a point about the legal aspect of this compiler.
One of the products they offer - VFP Advanced 32bit - takes the original VFP9 and makes a patch. This has to be done with knowledge you can only get through decompilation and that alone is an illegal act. The decompiled code also is the basis of the 64bit version.
I haven't read anything from Chen at Foxite, so I will stop at this point. I'm just saying in germany it would be illegal to use such a product and so to me it simply doesn't exist.
As I said: There is no 64bit version from MS.
Bye, Olaf.
One of the products they offer - VFP Advanced 32bit - takes the original VFP9 and makes a patch. This has to be done with knowledge you can only get through decompilation and that alone is an illegal act. The decompiled code also is the basis of the 64bit version.
I haven't read anything from Chen at Foxite, so I will stop at this point. I'm just saying in germany it would be illegal to use such a product and so to me it simply doesn't exist.
As I said: There is no 64bit version from MS.
Bye, Olaf.
Yeah I get the "legal" aspect, I just don't care in this case.
MS has abandoned this a long time ago... who are they going to come after? The user?
And for what? And where? That's a legal battle, I'd have no problem taking up.
Best Regards,
Scott
ATS, CDCE, CTIA, CTDC
"Everything should be made as simple as possible, and no simpler."
MS has abandoned this a long time ago... who are they going to come after? The user?
And for what? And where? That's a legal battle, I'd have no problem taking up.
Best Regards,
Scott
ATS, CDCE, CTIA, CTDC
"Everything should be made as simple as possible, and no simpler."
Mike Lewis
Programmer
I don't care either. Nor will most VFP users. But Microsoft will. They've got the resources to do that - and, more importantly, they've got the motivation.
It's not just a case of decompilation that Olaf referred to. Microsft could make a good case of passing-off.
Mike
__________________________________
Mike Lewis (Edinburgh, Scotland)
Visual FoxPro articles, tips and downloads
Mike Gagnon
Programmer
Here are a few observations:
1. His version of the compiler creates a C++ executable and one or two DLLs that contains the functionalities of the applications. Which makes DEcompilation of the application practically impossible.
2. Most of his changes are contained in .h files.
3. He uses Visual Studio's compiler to compile the application.
4. He does not use FoxPro executables to turn them into 64 bit executables, but rather uses FoxPro projects.
So if he uses visual studio's compiler to arrive at his final product, I am not sure about the legality of it.
P.S. I only used it for testing, but Peter Sass actually has his application installed on client's sites.
Mike Gagnon
If you want to get the best response to a question, please check out FAQ184-2483 first.
1. His version of the compiler creates a C++ executable and one or two DLLs that contains the functionalities of the applications. Which makes DEcompilation of the application practically impossible.
2. Most of his changes are contained in .h files.
3. He uses Visual Studio's compiler to compile the application.
4. He does not use FoxPro executables to turn them into 64 bit executables, but rather uses FoxPro projects.
So if he uses visual studio's compiler to arrive at his final product, I am not sure about the legality of it.
P.S. I only used it for testing, but Peter Sass actually has his application installed on client's sites.
Mike Gagnon
If you want to get the best response to a question, please check out FAQ184-2483 first.
Mike,
Excellent run down. Thanks for this, and goes to show, we shouldn't be judging the book by its cover (so to speak).
I agree, don't see any more legality of issue with this than, as I mentioned before FoxInCloud...
Well stated.
Best Regards,
Scott
ATS, CDCE, CTIA, CTDC
"Everything should be made as simple as possible, and no simpler."
Excellent run down. Thanks for this, and goes to show, we shouldn't be judging the book by its cover (so to speak).
I agree, don't see any more legality of issue with this than, as I mentioned before FoxInCloud...
Well stated.
Best Regards,
Scott
ATS, CDCE, CTIA, CTDC
"Everything should be made as simple as possible, and no simpler."
newtofoxpro
Programmer
That's why I fear to post my experience here. Yes, little dare
I have tried Chen's products including (Compiler)
I love vfp, which is refused to upgrade by M$. And if somebody is trying to keep alive-vfp, should I appreciate him ?
Till today, I did not find reason to fear. Win-10 support 32bit vfp-app. But, if up-coming os may not support 32bit app, then ?
Olaf Doschke
Programmer
Scott,
you're taking the point of view of a morality and loyality and justify your choice. Much revenge is based on such thoughts and I don't follow that. It doesn't convince me, that MS is a big company who could simply ignore the missing revenue, as they already did by abandoning the product. It doesn't convince me a being unfair, that MS as such a big comany could enforce its trademark and copyrights. These laws are made without looking at how big or small a company is. Making exceptions of rules makes them useless, even if they seem unfair at a time. Law is there to be interpreted, yes, but the intention is good, whether it's protecting a single author of a novel or a big comany.
I an also talk about this i more detai, as I know someone else having gone a route of extending VFP life, Christof Wollenhaupt. He has adandoned hi Guineu projet and made it open source (see He went the route of not changing VFP itself but creating a new .NET based runtime for the bytecode VFP generates. He made use of his MVP detail knowledge on VF, but this approach is more like offering an extension to unbind VFP code from the dependencies of root OS functions, which one day could vanish and making VFP compiled fxp work on the .NET framework. I don't know the details, but I know he was discussing with MS and some developers of VFP itself, most probably Ken Levy and Calvin Hsia. The outcome is that, so there must be some legal issues when you would begin selling such a product aside of profitability thoughts, which might make a big difference in Germany and China.
I see the C++ Compiler as another thing, it's transforming VFP code into C++, that's nothing infringing MS copyrights, just trademarks, and that could be avoided easily. It nevertheless has to have a basis on some base code giving you the VFP base classes of VFP from such low level nonvisual things as a datasession up to the controls. All this is not part of any code to be translated, all that is core VFP so you don't get around of infringing some of the core work and copyright of VFP.
At the end of it there is a discussion about software patents and I won't like to go in detail into that. I share some disgust about given patents like a one click shopping cart and other such state of the art things, simply by the definition of the patentability requirements. This is where we are now and ignoring it as nonsnese doesn't give you rights.
Bye, Olaf.
you're taking the point of view of a morality and loyality and justify your choice. Much revenge is based on such thoughts and I don't follow that. It doesn't convince me, that MS is a big company who could simply ignore the missing revenue, as they already did by abandoning the product. It doesn't convince me a being unfair, that MS as such a big comany could enforce its trademark and copyrights. These laws are made without looking at how big or small a company is. Making exceptions of rules makes them useless, even if they seem unfair at a time. Law is there to be interpreted, yes, but the intention is good, whether it's protecting a single author of a novel or a big comany.
I an also talk about this i more detai, as I know someone else having gone a route of extending VFP life, Christof Wollenhaupt. He has adandoned hi Guineu projet and made it open source (see He went the route of not changing VFP itself but creating a new .NET based runtime for the bytecode VFP generates. He made use of his MVP detail knowledge on VF, but this approach is more like offering an extension to unbind VFP code from the dependencies of root OS functions, which one day could vanish and making VFP compiled fxp work on the .NET framework. I don't know the details, but I know he was discussing with MS and some developers of VFP itself, most probably Ken Levy and Calvin Hsia. The outcome is that, so there must be some legal issues when you would begin selling such a product aside of profitability thoughts, which might make a big difference in Germany and China.
I see the C++ Compiler as another thing, it's transforming VFP code into C++, that's nothing infringing MS copyrights, just trademarks, and that could be avoided easily. It nevertheless has to have a basis on some base code giving you the VFP base classes of VFP from such low level nonvisual things as a datasession up to the controls. All this is not part of any code to be translated, all that is core VFP so you don't get around of infringing some of the core work and copyright of VFP.
At the end of it there is a discussion about software patents and I won't like to go in detail into that. I share some disgust about given patents like a one click shopping cart and other such state of the art things, simply by the definition of the patentability requirements. This is where we are now and ignoring it as nonsnese doesn't give you rights.
Bye, Olaf.
Not claiming any rights.
Just still don't see aside from "VFP 10" how this is any different from the open source / fox in cloud / VFPX (which also uses the "VFP" moniker).
If you want to get down to the legalities of this, the fact that MS ignores these for years only dilutes their hold that much more. They can't arbitrarily allow one group to use it, and not another. From a legal perspective, that becomes precedent, and unless they have some other agreement with one of these parties, the usage of "VFP 10" isn't going to mean much.
I get your moral/ethical challenge here. I'm only pointing out that MS has eroded this so far for so long, there is little really to consider.
Best Regards,
Scott
ATS, CDCE, CTIA, CTDC
"Everything should be made as simple as possible, and no simpler."
Just still don't see aside from "VFP 10" how this is any different from the open source / fox in cloud / VFPX (which also uses the "VFP" moniker).
If you want to get down to the legalities of this, the fact that MS ignores these for years only dilutes their hold that much more. They can't arbitrarily allow one group to use it, and not another. From a legal perspective, that becomes precedent, and unless they have some other agreement with one of these parties, the usage of "VFP 10" isn't going to mean much.
I get your moral/ethical challenge here. I'm only pointing out that MS has eroded this so far for so long, there is little really to consider.
Best Regards,
Scott
ATS, CDCE, CTIA, CTDC
"Everything should be made as simple as possible, and no simpler."
Olaf Doschke
Programmer
Now you ony take it from the trademark. But the things you mention are not replacing VFP, they are extending it or translating it.
I'll just take out Fox in cloud. It's taking your executables 1:1, it's just converting the forms and controls to html and so they were reworking the visual base controls and classes. The htmlified form running in your browser is turning clicks into request to an IIS to call into your code. It's quite like using your application remote, just not with a remote desktop graphically synched to your local screen, but synched with a browsers DOM.
VFPX is just extending VFP tools, you are allowed and encouraged to do that, it was even sanctioned to include the core Sedna add on MS made free, though MS could have insisted on that being kept separate from VFPX they cannot allow extensions in general vio builder.dbf and other mechanisms and commands and then disallow them just because they abandoned the product. Extending the IDE menu is not done by recompiling a VFP9.exe, it takes the extension points made for it, eg see
There is some big difference, if you take the IDE, decompile, patch and recompile it, thereby builing your work on top of other work, or building an extension you can offer to anyone having the product. That may be Yu Jia's argumentation, they just patch a vfp9.exe, but are they? Even if this is what's technically done and the process is rather like replacing the engine of a car, it's something I won't be comfortable with. You could also make frequency analysis of songs, see how to put these frequency spectrums together from music instrument samples and recompose a song, then only sell your samples and the "instructions" to put them together, it would still be stealing songs, wouldn't it?
Bye, Olaf.
I'll just take out Fox in cloud. It's taking your executables 1:1, it's just converting the forms and controls to html and so they were reworking the visual base controls and classes. The htmlified form running in your browser is turning clicks into request to an IIS to call into your code. It's quite like using your application remote, just not with a remote desktop graphically synched to your local screen, but synched with a browsers DOM.
VFPX is just extending VFP tools, you are allowed and encouraged to do that, it was even sanctioned to include the core Sedna add on MS made free, though MS could have insisted on that being kept separate from VFPX they cannot allow extensions in general vio builder.dbf and other mechanisms and commands and then disallow them just because they abandoned the product. Extending the IDE menu is not done by recompiling a VFP9.exe, it takes the extension points made for it, eg see
There is some big difference, if you take the IDE, decompile, patch and recompile it, thereby builing your work on top of other work, or building an extension you can offer to anyone having the product. That may be Yu Jia's argumentation, they just patch a vfp9.exe, but are they? Even if this is what's technically done and the process is rather like replacing the engine of a car, it's something I won't be comfortable with. You could also make frequency analysis of songs, see how to put these frequency spectrums together from music instrument samples and recompose a song, then only sell your samples and the "instructions" to put them together, it would still be stealing songs, wouldn't it?
Bye, Olaf.
Mike Lewis
Programmer
Scott,
I really don't want to labour this point. But ....
You're right that Mike Gagnon gave a good run-down of the legality issue - or at least one aspect of it. He might well be right. But it's separate from the point that I have been trying to make.
My point was that he is passing this product off as a new version of VFP. Or, at least, that's what Microsoft can claim. He calls it VFP Advanced. He states "Now there is a VFP Advanced 32-bit version and a VFP Advanced 64-bit Beta version." This is nothing to do with decompilation. It makes no difference whether he reverse engineered the Microsoft product, re-wrote some of the header files or DLLs, or even if he completely re-wrote the whole thing from scratch. Passing off is passing off.
I realise I'm in a minority on this issue. I would love to be proved wrong. But until I am, I'll be staying away.
Mike
__________________________________
Mike Lewis (Edinburgh, Scotland)
Visual FoxPro articles, tips and downloads
I really don't want to labour this point. But ....
You're right that Mike Gagnon gave a good run-down of the legality issue - or at least one aspect of it. He might well be right. But it's separate from the point that I have been trying to make.
My point was that he is passing this product off as a new version of VFP. Or, at least, that's what Microsoft can claim. He calls it VFP Advanced. He states "Now there is a VFP Advanced 32-bit version and a VFP Advanced 64-bit Beta version." This is nothing to do with decompilation. It makes no difference whether he reverse engineered the Microsoft product, re-wrote some of the header files or DLLs, or even if he completely re-wrote the whole thing from scratch. Passing off is passing off.
I realise I'm in a minority on this issue. I would love to be proved wrong. But until I am, I'll be staying away.
Mike
__________________________________
Mike Lewis (Edinburgh, Scotland)
Visual FoxPro articles, tips and downloads
Funny, but I would agree more with your point if he called it "Visual FoxPro Advanced" (x86 or x64, take your pick). The product name is Visual FoxPro, not VFP... and as mentioned, apparently no one had issue with VFPX so VFP Advanced shouldn't be any more an issue. That's where the trademark is, if that is the big concern. No issue of VFP was ever called "VFP". Doesn't matter what the .EXE file name is either.
I can think of lots of reasons not to use it, but the "legal" argument is the thinnest.
Best Regards,
Scott
ATS, CDCE, CTIA, CTDC
"Everything should be made as simple as possible, and no simpler."
I can think of lots of reasons not to use it, but the "legal" argument is the thinnest.
Best Regards,
Scott
ATS, CDCE, CTIA, CTDC
"Everything should be made as simple as possible, and no simpler."
Mike Gagnon
Programmer
Scott24x7
To be honest the about screen speaks for itself.
Mike Gagnon
If you want to get the best response to a question, please check out FAQ184-2483 first.
To be honest the about screen speaks for itself.
Mike Gagnon
If you want to get the best response to a question, please check out FAQ184-2483 first.
I don't see VFP there anywhere...
And not to be trite, but that "legal warning" in places like China... is not going to hold up. In the US, sure. But I live in Asia... so my carefactor is 0.
Best Regards,
Scott
ATS, CDCE, CTIA, CTDC
"Everything should be made as simple as possible, and no simpler."
And not to be trite, but that "legal warning" in places like China... is not going to hold up. In the US, sure. But I live in Asia... so my carefactor is 0.
Best Regards,
Scott
ATS, CDCE, CTIA, CTDC
"Everything should be made as simple as possible, and no simpler."
Mike Lewis
Programmer
If it was just a question of personal use, I would agree with that. But I use VFP to develop applications for clients. I can't put my clients in a position where there is a legal question mark over the work I do for them. And, if the worst happened and a court did find this product illegal, where does that leave the applications I develop with it?
Mike
__________________________________
Mike Lewis (Edinburgh, Scotland)
Visual FoxPro articles, tips and downloads
I'm quite certain with Surface Pro 4, Win 10, and office 2016, Microsoft has much bigger fish to worry about.
No offence, but I don't think any of us here are going to create a VFP app that's going to get the attention of MS. They don't give a wet slab about applications developed for our clients that run small to medium enterprises.
They spend more money writing the next version of Access, or Office 365, or Windows 11. When VFP was in its height, it was a rounding error for Microsoft. It's relevance to them has slipped so far below radar level that it now swims with the dolphin and whale.
Worry all you like, avoid all you like, it's really not going to make a difference. Bravo for the moral and ethical side, but the reality is MS doesn't care, and is never going to care...
Best Regards,
Scott
ATS, CDCE, CTIA, CTDC
"Everything should be made as simple as possible, and no simpler."
No offence, but I don't think any of us here are going to create a VFP app that's going to get the attention of MS. They don't give a wet slab about applications developed for our clients that run small to medium enterprises.
They spend more money writing the next version of Access, or Office 365, or Windows 11. When VFP was in its height, it was a rounding error for Microsoft. It's relevance to them has slipped so far below radar level that it now swims with the dolphin and whale.
Worry all you like, avoid all you like, it's really not going to make a difference. Bravo for the moral and ethical side, but the reality is MS doesn't care, and is never going to care...
Best Regards,
Scott
ATS, CDCE, CTIA, CTDC
"Everything should be made as simple as possible, and no simpler."
- Status
Similar threads