Taube's article is pretty long. It's still much faster to read it than to watch Lustig's whole presentation. If you can, do both, of course. If you can't or won't WTFV, then RTFA. If you can't or won't RTFA, then here's a summary.

Yes, too much of anything is toxic. Duh. That's not what Lustig or Taube are talking about. They're also not talking about "empty calories" -- the consumption of lots of sugar without other nutrients, meaning your overall calorie intake is higher, so you get fat and have obesity-related problems.

What they're talking about is the question of whether fructose directly causes health problems of its own accord -- namely, things like fatty liver and insulin resistance, things which may in turn raise the risk of diabetes and cancer independent of whether you get fat.

What Taube will tell you, that Lustig won't, is that the research is not conclusive. It all shows very strong correlation, but that of course isn't causation. And that's caused all these disputes of what the real problem is, particularly whether it's fat or sugar that's responsible.

Taube says that we should be considering the possibility that it's both; or at least, abandoning the idea that it must be either-or. Similarly, on the question of whether it's sucrose or HFCS that's worse, he suggests that they're so similar (both are glucose-fructose mixtures in nearly equal proportions) that they're probably both just as bad as each other.

Too much of anything is toxic; but (Taube says) because the research is inconclusive, nobody can say how much fructose is "too much". It's an established fact that short-term, high-dose fructose intake causes these problems (fatty liver et al.), but it's not known what long-term intake at the levels currently typical in the US will do.

The circumstantial evidence suggests that it will cause the same problems, eventually. And of course various people (like Lustig) have seized on this circumstantial stuff as damning evidence. But just because they're overstating the case, doesn't mean they're wrong, says Taube.

Yes, this is basically just a big MS bash-fest for the Slashdot crowds. Yes, Cansdale is not an open source hero, nor are his hands completely clean in all of this (whatever the legal truths, and whatever the hypocrisy of Microsoft pointing this out, it does look like he's acted in bad faith on some points). But that doesn't change a few basic things. Like why people here are bashing MS. Anything Cansdale might have done won't diminish the inherent flaws in MS's position, particularly how the sole EULA clause 'forbidding' his work probably doesn't apply, since it appears the Express edition is not 'technically limited' from loading add-ins after all.

And please don't make Cansdale's position sound worse than it is. You've already 'fessed up to misreading MS's form response for something Cansdale wrote himself, so thank you for that. But just how exactly do you find those two EULA clauses to be 'pretty much exactly the same'?

You may not work around any technical limitations in the software.

Vague. You can't do anything that's been 'technically limited' by the software. What constitutes a technical limitation, and what is simply beyond the scope of the product? Taken to the extreme... Express is not a 3D action game, so you may not work around this by installing any 3D action games on your computer. Basically, this means, 'We don't want people to do certain things with Express. We define what those are. No, we're not giving you a list, otherwise we won't be able to change our minds later.'

[You may not] use the Software in any manner not expressly authorised by this Agreement.

Very specific (albeit contingent on how specific the rest of the EULA is). 'If we don't specifically list it, you can't do it.' This lays everything out in the licence. No changing one's mind later.