TestDriven.NET by Jamie Cansdale

Not to be a douche, but you didn't point out how this affects *me*.  Are they going to sue you into submission until you stop distributing?  Is their problem with TestDriven.Net only when it's installed on Express SKUs?  etc...

On a related side note, I quite enjoy TestDriven.Net and think that Microsoft's test implementation (at least as it existed when I tried it in VS2005) totally sucked.  Test lists, are you retarded?  I appreciate your useful test runner implementation.

Ok, so I read through the extensive list of emails, and this is my summary...

Microsoft is protecting their Express SKU by pulling out a specifically vague clause to get you in line.  This doesn't surprise me, you probably won't win if you choose to fight it...

+1 suckage point for Microsoft for not allowing extensibility in the Express SKUs.

+1 suckage point for Microsoft for bringing in the lawyers.

They hold out your MVP status since you didn't immediately cease.

+1 suckage point for Microsoft.

It seems like they could also use the same clause against you on any other SKU if they choose to.

+1 suckage point for Microsoft.

You should've immeditately said you wouldn't remove your Express SKU integration until you've been notified by their lawyers.  I understand why you wouldn't want to do this, but it probably would've saved yourself a lot of worry and hassle.

+1 suckage point for you.

So in total 4 suckage points for Microsoft and 1 suckage point for you.  Obviously Microsoft sucks more than you do on this issue, but what can you do?

I imagine there'll be a bit of blog outrage for a while, but at the end of the day Microsoft will still have you remove your Express SKU integration.  

Suckage.

Their claims are unsubstantiated. The EULA clause is not legal. Just ask a lawyer.

Use their stuff, play by their rules. Why don't you write your own version of VS Express?

You've been kicked (a good thing) - Trackback from DotNetKicks.com

I do not really know anything about TestDriven.NET or the situation, but if the intention is to provide integration with some free IDE, wouldn't SharpDevelop suffice? :-)

Jeez, come on MSFT

C# Express doesn't support extenions.  You can't create or load them.  I don't understand why you think it's legal for you to hack on Microsoft products.  Of course they're going to come after you.

Amazing... how draconian of them... Sorry Jamie but you've gone from MVP to MMW (Microsoft's Most Wanted!)

I guess that will teach us developers, developers, developers to build on the .NET platform.

This is stupid and pointless.  Microsoft isn't in any position to be pushing developers away from their product.

gggggrrrrrrrrrr =(

I cant belive how many time has M$ to do this idiots THINGS !!!

How many market share cant lose leting anyone use testdriven with express !!! damn idiots

Sure the marketings guys said: "OMG if anyway realize that with NUnit, Express and TD.NET is enough for a great user experience, so, who can buy VS ??"

How can they be so silly of mind !!!

All my forces with you dude =) all the community will be with you too you are a great value for all us.

You must call ScottGu that looks like the great guy that hear us in M$, and is racional, not like these other idiots, I read near all the mails, and make me so angryyyyyyy

Best of luck

Marcos

this is totally insane.

Now i know why i can't build extensions for MS Paint =( sigh.. :P

Microsoft vs. TestDriven.Net Express

Jamie,

First, let me state I'm a paying TestDriven.net user.  I love the product and I don't want it to suddenly disappear and go away due to this issue.

In regards to this, I read the entire thread of correspondence (all of it).  While I do not agree with how MS handled this situation and more importantly you (wording of emails and holding subscriptions/memberships over your head), I have to agree with MS on this issue. Regardless of how you integrated TD.NET into the Express SKU, extending the limited functionality of the Express product clearly was against their terms (I'm not arguing the terminology of the license agreement.  I'm talking more about what they "intended" it mean, which we all know by now).  Btw, I found it very annoying how Jason Weber kept referring to your support of the Express SKU as a "hack", especially when you stated numerous times that you were using publically listed API's.

With all of that said, is having Express support that important? I ask this as an avid TD.NET user who doesn't want to see the product possibly die because of this.

Regards,

Avid TD.NET user...

My heart goes out to you. Is there anything that can be done to assist you?

I can't understand if they think you are working around a software limitation, or a feature limitation.

As far as I can tell you are giving *new* functionality, of which there may be a comparable feature in other versions of Visual Studio, which is in no way in breach of their licence.

More to the point, if they don' want add-ins to provide functionality that may be present in other versions of their software, it is up to them to either sandbox add-ins (as in done in many games and is well accepted practice) or to remove that feature if they have given the capability to do something they didn't want people to do.

Regardless, the approach they are taking (to try and limit additional functionality), is completely bizzare.

TestDriven.NET is *esential* software - whether you use the Express or any higher vesion of VS ... I wouldn't be without it.

And ... my open email to Jason Weber (feel free to send him your thoughts at his published email address  Jason@JasonWeber.com ):

Jason

Just so you can start to understand the bad feeling you have created, I would like to add my voice to those others you will no doubt receive about your ridiculous campaign against TestDriven.NET, one of the most essential Visual Studio add-ins there is.

Normally, I am a very vocal defender of Microsoft, and especially of copyright and IP laws, but on this one you just have the situation completely wrong.

You are attempting to limit functionality within Visual Studio add-ins, a problem (if it is a problem) of your own making.

Regardless of whether you think you can win this fight on a technicality or terminology, I assure you that you won’t win anything in the long run, and you will seriously alienate a SIGNIFICANT number of .NET developers.

Good luck in the petty battle you have chosen.

Regards

I think perhaps the MS guys misunderstand your tools:)

Damn!

be strong :)

Ok, I love testdriven.net.

but I do recall reading some post from you quite a while back where you stated that you used hacks in order to make it work with express.

Ofcourse they made the express edition limited so that users would want to buy the real thing.

If you then found a way to work around this limitation , then Id say its pretty close to cracking a free product and enabling the full version.

So I can see why they are a bit upset.

Sounds like someone at MS had their ego bruised a bit by your so-called hacking, and decided to sick the lawyers on you to compensate.

"Release the hounds!"

This really sucks.

But perhaps on a positive note, when reading the emails I felt qutie motivated to harness my development energies more in the Ruby commmunity. This seems like an amicable solution to me.

Funny how Microsoft gets rather defensive about their test suite.

It's even more funnier how they charge an arm and a leg (i.e. Team Suite) for something that should clearly be cheaper when compared to other offerings.

I'm glad you brought this up Jamie.  I'm hoping Microsoft really thinks over what they have done, because I for one am not that keen in their technologies anymore if this is how they treat developers.

Jason Weber also needs to take courses in customer service.  I really disliked his selective, snobby & unthoughtful responses to your emails.

I mean, who wouldn't be pissed off after reading this: "Our position hasn't changed and we don't have any new suggestions for

you. I wanted to provide you one last opportunity to discuss this with

the Microsoft executive responsible for the Visual Studio business. It's

your decision whether or not you take advantage of that opportunity."

and this: "I manage the Visual Studio Ecosystem product team and will be your

primary point of contact at Microsoft. Your call with Craig was out of

courtesy so that you could discuss with a Microsoft executive and better

understand our position. If you have suggestions please work directly

with me. I look forward to see your proposal."

How rude is that?  This is exactly the behavior that gets large pompous software companies into trouble (Ashton-Tate comes to mind).

However, I don't agree with you putting in what is essentially a crack for Express SKUs.  Hope you fix that, because this is not a plus point for you.

Chris

So - anyone want to develop a plug in for VS Express? No you don't. I was just thinking today...

I can't react to the license problem for the Express SKU. I have a feeling you're on a loosing battle. Not that you're wrong, it's just David vs Goliath.

On the MVP status however, I know for a fact that you stand for TestDriven.net, which is on every serious .net developer's PC. How much more do you want to be involved in a community? What does it mean when they say that your community activity was way below what is expected of an MVP? Did you fail to promote M$ dogma enough? To me, this raises some serious questions on the community-driven aspect of MVP awards.

Jamie: Keep up the good work.

Microsoft: You seriously need to rethink this one... I mean seriously!?! Do you want a developer ecosystem or not

I sympathise with your position, which must be incredibly frustrating. It's clear that you have worked on TestDriven.NET with the best of intentions for the developer community, and the developer community really appreciates it. It's also clear that you did not set out to develop a "hack" and you honestly believe that you have not breached Microsoft's licencing conditions.

It's possible that you're right. However, it does seem to be open to interpretation. That clause appears to a layman to be a dubious one, but IANAL and the saying that "ignorance of the law is no excuse" is nagging away at me. Under those circumstances, I don't think you should fight a battle that will inevitably be far more painful for you than for Microsoft, even if you were to win.

Write it off to experience and enjoy the gratefulness of the portion of the developer community that you *have* been able to reach. There's no shame in that.

Another reason why I feel that Microsoft does not value its developer community. Ruby On Rails any one?

Just a note that my heart goes out to you too Jamie. Your strength in not bowing to the awesome power that is Microsoft and *attempting* to stick up for the hobbiest developer is very commendable.

The folks developing without a big budget to back them need TDD just as much as the rest of us, maybe more so. In a sane world, people would not start off coding the 'bad' way and then learn TDD once they get a 'real' job. Neither should we be forced to drop TDD (or TDD.NET, ideally) when we drop into hobbiest mode.

Your efforts are commendable. My work already bought me TDD for VS.NET, but because I appreciate your stand I want you to know I'll make a point to support you in future... so as to make up for the marketing support your missing out from the motership.

A brave stand. thanks

Sucks.  

Keep up the good work. If you need a legal defence fund, I will certainly contribute.  

The thing that really gets me is that MS are just being stupid - they aren't gaining anything.  

Ho hum.  LAMP, here I come!  

Pingback from  » Microsoft vs TestDriven.Net Express

no good can come of this for both parties. mark my words this is like watching a war, both sides are doomed but the folks selling the weapons will profit (Media etc)

I wonder if this Jason is a fifth columnist within Microsoft.

He seems to be bent on harming the ecosystem.

I'm hoping that this now gets to the right people in MS and they sort Jason out.

His approach, deviousness, foot dragging etc. take your breath away.

I don't believe that most of MS is like that, and certainly not the upper management.  They can show that by fixing this and apologising.  

This sucks. TestDriven is a must have for every VS.net installation.

Instead to what people here actually think, the EULA is valid. Certain parts of EULA's in the past were proved invalid, but the point which is violated in this case isn't.

Basicly you are not allowed to use Visual Studio Express to create products which you distribute commercially. In the case of TestDriven.NET this does happen, so MS is completely right... Besides that MS doesnt seem to be attacking TestDriven.NET, but rather you, as you are commercially exploiting an project you claim is Open Source (Try fitting that into GPL).

The same clause which the Express edition includes, is also included in the GPL in another form. Till this date nobody ever questioned that clause...

Hmm, sounds familiar:

martinfowler.com/.../RubyMicrosoft.html

In the past I've heard about you losing your MVP but hadn't looked closely until today.  If you need contributions for legal defense, please put out the call.

Microsoft, do you really think your patents, lawyers and the legal system will allow you to stomp on individual developers without the non-stomped noticing.  I didn't think Fowler, was right when I heard him tell Hanselman.  Now I wonder if the trickle will become a flood?

Well, if you're in violation of the eula, then you're in violation of the eula.  What sucks is that someone at MS didn't shoot you a free copy of VS to compile it against once it became well known as a useful tool in the community.  As a regular reader of Microsoft blogs, I'm always seeing somebody giving away MSDN memberships, software, etc.  It would have been a much better thing to do to help you get straight with the legal shit rather than just sending a C&D.

Jamie Cansdale wrote a great product. Why? Because the one written by Microsoft sucked out loud. What'd they do? They threatened to sue him for it. The best part is that they'll most likely take his code and put it...

Is there really a case here, I just read the EULA, I don't see any clause in it that states that C# Express can't be used commercially, mine is located at: "C:\Program Files\Microsoft Visual Studio 8\Microsoft Visual C# 2005 Express Edition – ENU"

When I look at my XNA Express EULA it does clearly state that I am not to create commerical games for use on the XBOX 360.

I thought that MVPs got free copies of Visual Studio 2005.  Also, Visual Studio over at one of the Electronic Superstores is like 125 or so US Dollars.  Shop online and get it for less.  

I would strongly recommend that you take a look at the REAL EULA for C#, I can find no words against commercial use, except for the following:

"..use the software for commercial software hosting services."

This does seem like the case for TestDriven.NET as indicated from the blog posts here.

If they at least supported all their own addons on vs pro/team edition, then I suppose people would have a choice to upgrade if they find TD.Net essential. However, for example their XNA package does not work on anything but Express. That means even if I am willing to pay (I own vs team ed, td.net, typemock and r#) they are still actively trying to stop me developing in a tdd way effectively.

Microsoft: I don't know who have the legal right in this, but please stop this. I realize you are afraid the community will fill in the holes in the Express SKU and possibly make it too competitive with the non-free versions, but you are really harming a lot with this. Or just give Jamie a big bag of money for his company and put TDD.net directly in vs (all sku's)

I just don't understand Microsoft's reaction in this case.  Instead of trying to make your life difficult, they should be trying to make it easier.  You filled a major gap in their toolset.  Given the choice between TestDriven.NET and their pitiful unit testing tools, I'd choose TestDriven.NET.

I know it doesn't help, but I think the vast majority of the community is 100% behind you on this, Jamie.  Good luck, and thanks for making such an excellent tool.

That Martin Fowler article is interesting.

This is a joke, no wonder people are fussing about MS losing the Alpha Geeks. Unit Testing is not an expert or advanced add-on, it is a core part of development. TestDriven.NET is an excellent product and anything which encourages even hobbyist developers to embrace Unit Testing should be encouraged.

My problem: I love working with C# and .NET framework. The Mono project looks more and more attractive all the time. How hard would it be to enable TestDriven.NET on MonoDevelop?

Good luck dude, this totally blows.  

It really seems like MS is trying to drive the best developers away from .NET lately.  Whether or not they have a case for this, it sounds totally gaytarded.

[trackback] MS lawyers bully TestDriven.NET...

Jeremy suggests that Martin Fowler has fired a shot across MS's bow with his RubyMicrosoft post.

When it all goes pear shaped and you're forced to remove the Express integration, just make sure you anonymously leak the source code for achieving the integration to as many distribution points as possible.

Get a lawyer and be sure you're doing the right things legally. Be aware that going to court with MS isn't easy: their lawyers have a wellproven tactic: drown you and your lawyer with documents and documents and more documents.

Though I've to say that the step you took with this post is a bold one and will likely make you more successfull in solving this than waiting till you have to show up in court.

Personally I find this the most absurd action coming from Redmond I've seen in a long time. It doesn't gain them anything, only bad publicity. The thing is that among developers, there IS such a thing as bad publicity: developers tend to remember these kind of things for a long time.

Pingback from  Microsoft don't get it « Geeks in the West Country

Pingback from  Ellis Web » Items of Interest: 2005-05-31

this is interesting because it needs to be looked at a from a wider context. What happens if a whole bunch of vendors start to build addins that work on Express. You then have an ecosystem based upon a free IDE and I would assume that Express R&D is being serviced by the rest of the VS SKUs. So if someone says I get free VS Express + a bunch of addins and I no longer need VS Pro - where does that leave Microsoft. So it might not be a case of MS just targetting Testdriven.net but more worried by the larger implications

I know I'm going to be the bad guy on this...

I'm willing to concede that you probably didn't do any reverse engineering to make the VS.NET Express version work with TestDriven.NET.  Hell, I'm even willing to concede that you are probably (technically) legally within your rights to develop the TD.NET the way you did.  

And I'm not defending how MS handled the situation, either, because I think they botched it, a bit, too.  I even think that it's THEIR fault if they allow addins to VS.NET Express at all.

But I don't think you should have offered this for the Express SKU if that pissed them off.  If you wanted to develop it for a free IDE, develop it for SharpDevelop or something.  

I'm baffled. As far as I can see, the main thing Jamie asked for, is an exact explanation on how the license was breached.

I mean, how can anyone claim a breach, but refuse to offer a clear explanation?

Pingback from  Is Microsoft Losing Its Developer Base? « IS Department

I understand your pain, look at it this way. I created MyGeneration with Justin Greenwood. MyGeneration is a very popular .NET code generator. I also created an architecture called dOOdads. MyGeneration is still the #1 download each week 3 years running on download.com in the .NET tools category. We've turned a ton of people onto .NET and especially through dOOdads, it allows novices to act like experts. I've since moved onto EntitySpaces a commerical offering. So we've done our share in helping the .NET community grow.

I was never given MVP status? Though I can see from our stats that even Microsoft themselves run MyGeneration daily. I'm not at all upset, I am staunchly independent and would never become co-mingled in that mess. I learned that through an experience in an earlier life. So relish your independence my friend.

Remember that scene from "It's a wonderful life" when Jimmy Stewart shakes ol' man Potter's hand after being offered everything he had ever dreamed about? Think back ...

M$ is only about money. You can see all their history. They have NO real partners, they have only future victims. m$ only uses developers, partners as their sales force for free. When they acquire the market share in specific area by their partners, they develop their own product and kick all their "partners" out . So why are you killing yourselves microsoft developers? use linux/unix, java, oracle... All of them are state-of-the-art products and you are not dependent on one big company and primary you dont support your future competitor.

I can't tell if Jason is so used to people rolling over when he says that he can't deal with someone who wants answers or if someone else tied his hands too tight about legal issues.  It is possible that someone told him that he cannot give any statement that might be construed as legal advice so he wouldn't tell you what you violated (license and clause) because it might be "legal advice."

I'm not a lawyer so I don't know if you are really in breach of the agreement, but I would suggest to Jason that he should have talked to the lawyers earlier on for specifics of what you were violating.  Clear communication can avoid so many hardships.

From reading the emails it would seem that the issue is that writing addins for VS express editions isn't allowed and that VS express edition isn't supposed to support addins.

I haven't checked in anything even close to detail, so if this isn't true then ignore the rest of this.

I was looking at Microsoft Popfly today and it supports VS express, it has an addin (Popfly Explorer). The screenshots here (www.popfly.com/.../Explorer.aspx) have a Popfly menu added in.

Popfly is for creating mashups easily with little or no code. Since the 'little or no code' would be of interest to hobbyist developers then it being supported on VS express editions would make sense.

If the adding of menu items to VS express could cause infringement of the VS expess EULA, then doesn't the creation of Popfly smack of double standards.

Once again though, the disclaimer, I haven't looked in detail at why TestDriven.Net infringes the VS express EULA, but this is hardly surprising as through most of the emails Jamie seemed to be asking Microsoft that same question as well and not getting any answer. I'm still left somewhat unsure as to why TestDriven.Net infringed the VS express EULA.

It does seem that VS express prohibits the use of Add-ins (and Macros and Packages), while the next version up (Standard edition) allows you to 'consume add-ins' (as per the VS comparison chart (msdn2.microsoft.com/.../aa700921.aspx).

Popfly however seems to mention the use of the Popfly Explorer add-in explicitly for VS express editions. The screen shot on the Explorer page () is showing the Popfly add-in for the VS VB.Net Express edition. Also mentioned on the site is the Potential Future Enhancements of 'The team is working on enabling Visual Studio Express users to publish not only source code, but completed projects...'.

However, Popfly does look like a very cool technology and I'm looking forward to having a play with it and I think it is great that it is available on the express editions - but I feel the same way about TestDriven.Net. Why can't TestDriven.Net be enabled for express editions, especially if it's enabled for Popfly.

Does this mean that the Microsoft Popfly developers will soon be told to remove express support? I really hope not as that would also be a shame, but come on, enough with the double standards.

Remember, as Jamie states, he used only public API calls within VS Express.

There is no hacking, no reverse engineering, no use of reflector to read the internals. Just a few calls to public APIs to add menu items into VS Express.

This is a mistake on the part of MS for making public APIs available that were apparently only intended for their own internal use. And that is where they came unstuck in court before.

My advice (as someone who has spent years in court over IP rights issues) ... don't appoint legal representation if you intend to fight this, represent yourself. Firstly you will save a fortune on legal bills that will bankrupt you before you even get your day in court (your costs will be minimal, somewhere in the order of a few hundred pounds to get to court), secondly the court gives a lot more leeway to litigants in person (as you aren;t expected to know all of the relevant procedures), thirdly the other side *has* to provide you with asistance and explanations for all the procedures and tricks they are using to help you defend them, and fourthly, they will give up long before you do this route.

Either way you are risking a lot, unless TestDriven.NET is a limited company, in which case you are acting on behalf of your comapny, and not as an individual ... in which case your liability total is probably £100.

Good Luck

MICROSOFT SOFTWARE LICENSE TERMS

MICROSOFT VISUAL C# 2005 EXPRESS EDITION

These license terms are an agreement between Microsoft Corporation (or based on where you live, one of its affiliates) and you.  Please read them.  They apply to the software named above, which includes the media on which you received it, if any.  The terms also apply to any Microsoft

 • updates,

 • supplements,

 • Internet-based services, and

 • support services

for this software, unless other terms accompany those items.  If so, those terms apply.

BY USING THE SOFTWARE, YOU ACCEPT THESE TERMS.  IF YOU DO NOT ACCEPT THEM, DO NOT USE THE SOFTWARE.

------------------------------

AS DESCRIBED BELOW, USING SOME FEATURES ALSO OPERATES AS YOUR CONSENT TO THE TRANSMISSION OF CERTAIN STANDARD COMPUTER INFORMATION FOR INTERNET-BASED SERVICES.

If you comply with these license terms, you have the rights below.

1. INSTALLATION AND USE RIGHTS.  

a. Installation and Use.  One user may install and use any number of copies of the software on your devices to design, develop and test your programs.

b. Included Microsoft Programs.  The software contains other Microsoft programs.  These license terms apply to your use of those programs.

c. Third Party Programs.  The software contains third party programs.  The license terms with those programs apply to your use of them.

2. ADDITIONAL LICENSING REQUIREMENTS AND/OR USE RIGHTS.

a. Distributable Code.  The software contains code that you are permitted to distribute in programs you develop if you comply with the terms below.

i. Right to Use and Distribute.  The code and text files listed below are “Distributable Code.”

 • REDIST.TXT Files.  You may copy and distribute the object code form of code listed in REDIST.TXT files.

 • Sample Code.  You may modify, copy, and distribute the source and object code form of code marked as “sample.”

 • Microsoft Merge Modules.  You may copy and distribute the unmodified output of Microsoft Merge Modules.

 • Image Library.  You may copy and distribute images and animations in the Image Library as described in the software documentation.  You may also modify that content.  If you modify the content, it must be for use that is consistent with the permitted use of the unmodified content.

 • Third Party Distribution.  You may permit distributors of your programs to copy and distribute the Distributable Code as part of those programs.

ii. Distribution Requirements.  For any Distributable Code you distribute, you must

 • add significant primary functionality to it in your programs;

 • require distributors and external end users to agree to terms that protect it at least as much as this agreement;

 • display your valid copyright notice on your programs; and

 • indemnify, defend, and hold harmless Microsoft from any claims, including attorneys’ fees, related to the distribution or use of your programs.

iii. Distribution Restrictions.  You may not

 • alter any copyright, trademark or patent notice in the Distributable Code;

 • use Microsoft’s trademarks in your programs’ names or in a way that suggests your programs come from or are endorsed by Microsoft;

 • distribute Distributable Code, other than code listed in OTHER-DIST.TXT files, to run on a platform other than the Windows platform;

 • include Distributable Code in malicious, deceptive or unlawful programs; or

 • modify or distribute the source code of any Distributable Code so that any part of it becomes subject to an Excluded License.  An Excluded License is one that requires, as a condition of use, modification or distribution, that

 • the code be disclosed or distributed in source code form; or

 • others have the right to modify it.

3. INTERNET-BASED SERVICES.  Microsoft provides Internet-based services with the software.  It may change or cancel them at any time.

a. Consent for Internet-Based Services.  The software feature described below connects to Microsoft or service provider computer systems over the Internet.  In some cases, you will not receive a separate notice when they connect.  You may switch off this feature or not use it.  For more information about this feature, see the software documentation.  BY USING THIS FEATURE, YOU CONSENT TO THE TRANSMISSION OF THIS INFORMATION.  Microsoft does not use the information to identify or contact you.

Computer Information.  The following feature uses Internet protocols, which send to the appropriate systems computer information, such as your Internet protocol address, the type of operating system, browser and name and version of the software you are using, and the language code of the device where you installed the software.  Microsoft uses this information to make the Internet-based service available to you.

 • Digital Certificates.  The software uses digital certificates.  These digital certificates confirm the identity of Internet users sending X.509 standard encrypted information.  The software retrieves certificates and updates certificate revocation lists. These security features operate only when you use the Internet.

b. Misuse of Internet-based Services.  You may not use this service in any way that could harm it or impair anyone else’s use of it.  You may not use the service to try to gain unauthorized access to any service, data, account or network by any means.

4. PRODUCT KEYS.  The software requires a key to install or access it.  You are responsible for the use of keys assigned to you.  You should not share the keys with third parties.

5. MANDATORY ACTIVATION.  THE SOFTWARE MAY REQUIRE ACTIVATION TO PREVENT ITS UNLICENSED USE.  IF SO, YOU WILL NOT BE ABLE TO USE THE SOFTWARE IF YOU DO NOT ACTIVATE IT AS DESCRIBED DURING INSTALLATION.  You can activate the software by Internet or telephone; Internet and telephone service charges may apply.  Some changes to your computer components or the software may require you to reactivate the software.  THE SOFTWARE WILL REMIND YOU TO ACTIVATE UNTIL YOU DO.

6. MICROSOFT .NET FRAMEWORK 2.0.  The software contains Microsoft .NET Framework 2.0 software.  This software is part of Windows.  The license terms for Windows apply to your use of this .NET Framework component.

7. SQL SERVER BENCHMARK TESTING.  You must obtain Microsoft’s prior written approval to disclose to a third party the results of any benchmark test of the SQL Server software that accompanies this software.

8. MICROSOFT .NET FRAMEWORK BENCHMARK TESTING.  The software includes the .NET Framework component of the Windows operating systems (“.NET Component”).  You may conduct internal benchmark testing of the .NET (“.NET Component”).  You may disclose the results of any benchmark test of the .NET Component, provided that you comply with the following terms:  (1) you must disclose all the information necessary for replication of the tests, including complete and accurate details of your benchmark testing methodology, the test scripts/cases, tuning parameters applied, hardware and software platforms tested, the name and version number of any third party testing tool used to conduct the testing, and complete source code for the benchmark suite/harness that is developed by or for you and used to test both the .NET Component and the competing implementation(s); (2) you must disclose the date(s) that you conducted the benchmark tests, along with specific version information for all Microsoft software products tested, including the .NET Component; (3) your benchmark testing was performed using all performance tuning and best practice guidance set forth in the product documentation and/or on Microsoft’s support web sites, and uses the latest updates, patches and fixes available for the .NET Component and the relevant Microsoft operating system; (4) it shall be sufficient if you make the disclosures provided for above at a publicly available location such as a website, so long as every public disclosure of the results of your benchmark test expressly identifies the public site containing all required disclosures; and (5) nothing in this provision shall be deemed to waive any other right that you may have to conduct benchmark testing.  The foregoing obligations shall not apply to your disclosure of the results of any customized benchmark test of the .NET Component, whereby such disclosure is made under confidentiality in conjunction with a bid request by a prospective customer, such customer’s application(s) are specifically tested and the results are only disclosed to such specific customer.  Notwithstanding any other agreement you may have with Microsoft, if you disclose such benchmark test results, Microsoft shall have the right to disclose the results of benchmark tests it conducts of your products that compete with the .NET Component, provided it complies with the same conditions above.

9. SCOPE OF LICENSE.  The software is licensed, not sold. This agreement only gives you some rights to use the software.  Microsoft reserves all other rights.  Unless applicable law gives you more rights despite this limitation, you may use the software only as expressly permitted in this agreement.  In doing so, you must comply with any technical limitations in the software that only allow you to use it in certain ways.  For more information, see www.microsoft.com/licensing/userights.  You may not

 • work around any technical limitations in the software;

 • reverse engineer, decompile or disassemble the software, except and only to the extent that applicable law expressly permits, despite this limitation;

 • make more copies of the software than specified in this agreement or allowed by applicable law, despite this limitation;

 • publish the software for others to copy;

 • rent, lease or lend the software; or

 • use the software for commercial software hosting services.

10. BACKUP COPY.  You may make one backup copy of the software.  You may use it only to reinstall the software.

11. DOCUMENTATION.  Any person that has valid access to your computer or internal network may copy and use the documentation for your internal, reference purposes.

12. TRANSFER TO A THIRD PARTY.  The first user of the software may transfer it, and this agreement, directly to a third party.  Before the transfer, that party must agree that this agreement applies to the transfer and use of the software.  The first user must uninstall the software before transferring it separately from the device.  The first user may not retain any copies.

13. EXPORT RESTRICTIONS.  The software is subject to United States export laws and regulations.  You must comply with all domestic and international export laws and regulations that apply to the software.  These laws include restrictions on destinations, end users and end use.  For additional information, see www.microsoft.com/exporting.

14. SUPPORT SERVICES. Because this software is “as is,” we may not provide support services for it.

15. ENTIRE AGREEMENT.  This agreement, and the terms for supplements, updates, Internet-based services and support services that you use, are the entire agreement for the software and support services.

16. APPLICABLE LAW.

a. United States.  If you acquired the software in the United States, Washington state law governs the interpretation of this agreement and applies to claims for breach of it, regardless of conflict of laws principles.  The laws of the state where you live govern all other claims, including claims under state consumer protection laws, unfair competition laws, and in tort.

b. Outside the United States.  If you acquired the software in any other country, the laws of that country apply.

17. LEGAL EFFECT.  This agreement describes certain legal rights.  You may have other rights under the laws of your country.  You may also have rights with respect to the party from whom you acquired the software.  This agreement does not change your rights under the laws of your country if the laws of your country do not permit it to do so.

18. DISCLAIMER OF WARRANTY.   THE SOFTWARE IS LICENSED “AS-IS.”  YOU BEAR THE RISK OF USING IT.  MICROSOFT GIVES NO EXPRESS WARRANTIES, GUARANTEES OR CONDITIONS.  YOU MAY HAVE ADDITIONAL CONSUMER RIGHTS UNDER YOUR LOCAL LAWS WHICH THIS AGREEMENT CANNOT CHANGE.  TO THE EXTENT PERMITTED UNDER YOUR LOCAL LAWS, MICROSOFT EXCLUDES THE IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY, FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE AND NON-INFRINGEMENT.

19. LIMITATION ON AND EXCLUSION OF REMEDIES AND DAMAGES.  YOU CAN RECOVER FROM MICROSOFT AND ITS SUPPLIERS ONLY DIRECT DAMAGES UP TO U.S. $5.00.  YOU CANNOT RECOVER ANY OTHER DAMAGES, INCLUDING CONSEQUENTIAL, LOST PROFITS, SPECIAL, INDIRECT OR INCIDENTAL DAMAGES.

This limitation applies to

 • anything related to the software, services, content (including code) on third party Internet sites, or third party programs; and

 • claims for breach of contract, breach of warranty, guarantee or condition, strict liability, negligence, or other tort to the extent permitted by applicable law.

It also applies even if Microsoft knew or should have known about the possibility of the damages.  The above limitation or exclusion may not apply to you because your country may not allow the exclusion or limitation of incidental, consequential or other damages.

Please note: As this software is distributed in Quebec, Canada, some of the clauses in this agreement are provided below in French.

Remarque : Ce logiciel étant distribué au Québec, Canada, certaines des clauses dans ce contrat sont fournies ci-dessous en français.

EXONÉRATION DE GARANTIE. Le logiciel visé par une licence est offert « tel quel ». Toute utilisation de ce logiciel est à votre seule risque et péril. Microsoft n’accorde aucune autre garantie expresse. Vous pouvez bénéficier de droits additionnels en vertu du droit local sur la protection dues consommateurs, que ce contrat ne peut modifier. La ou elles sont permises par le droit locale, les garanties implicites de qualité marchande, d’adéquation à un usage particulier et d’absence de contrefaçon sont exclues.

LIMITATION DES DOMMAGES-INTÉRÊTS ET EXCLUSION DE RESPONSABILITÉ POUR LES DOMMAGES.  Vous pouvez obtenir de Microsoft et de ses fournisseurs une indemnisation en cas de dommages directs uniquement à hauteur de 5,00 $ US. Vous ne pouvez prétendre à aucune indemnisation pour les autres dommages, y compris les dommages spéciaux, indirects ou accessoires et pertes de bénéfices.

Cette limitation concerne :

 • tout  ce qui est relié au logiciel, aux services ou au contenu (y compris le code) figurant sur des sites Internet tiers ou dans des programmes tiers ; et

 • les réclamations au titre de violation de contrat ou de garantie, ou au titre de responsabilité stricte, de négligence ou d’une autre faute dans la limite autorisée par la loi en vigueur.

Elle s’applique également, même si Microsoft connaissait ou devrait connaître l’éventualité d’un tel dommage.  Si votre pays n’autorise pas l’exclusion ou la limitation de responsabilité pour les dommages indirects, accessoires ou de quelque nature que ce soit, il se peut que la limitation ou l’exclusion ci-dessus ne s’appliquera pas à votre égard.

EFFET JURIDIQUE.  Le présent contrat décrit certains droits juridiques. Vous pourriez avoir d’autres droits prévus par les lois de votre pays.  Le présent contrat ne modifie pas les droits que vous confèrent les lois de votre pays si celles ci ne le permettent pas.

Regardless of who I think is right or wrong, I am wondering from a business perspective, why you would even want to go down this road.  It seems to me that most serious developers, who would be most likely to find TDD.Net of value would not have a problem moving up to a non-Express SKU.

Bill Gates and Steve Ballmer are not going to lose any sleep over this issue and it won't affect their ability to pay the monthly mortgage.  Is this really the hill you want to die on?  Sometimes you gotta pick your battles.

My advice to Jamie

Whatever happened to "Developers, developers, developers, ..."?

This seems totally at odds with the whole point of VS Express.

Anyway, kudos, Jamie. TestDriven really works great for what it intended to do, especially compared to the lame duck test runner UI in VS2005 Team System Ripoff Edition.

You're crazy if you think TestDriven can get away with this.  Microsoft has hundreds of ISV's extending Visual Studio and we get together in Redmond a few times a year for deep dives with Microsoft.  We can all see how you've hacked your way into C# Express and could easily make the same hacks.  There's nothing creative or brilliant about your hack.  You're injecting code.  Congratulations  We would all like to integrate with C# Express but we play by the rules because we're trying to partner with Microsoft.  You might be able to fool these people into thinking that you've created legal extensions but any Visual Studio expert can see right through what you've done and know that you're hacking.  There are hundreds of us that Microsoft could have testify on their behalf.  Jason is right to refer to TestDriven as a hack.

First, Microsoft is causing legal troubles for Jamie Cansdale of the TestDriven.Net. Yes, Microsoft is...

You sound like a shame Michael, suppose that you are right.

M$ is the "evel empire" that everybody said, so the discussion here is more bigger than that.

If you create a program that inject code in Windows 2000 to solve some task, you are breaking the EULA ??

OMG !!  Mike Gunderloy was so damn right when said that a dev world full of patent claims is the worriest side that we can go.

Damn you M$ !!

You make a community really hungry, the battle just start and I see a lot of MVP giving the reason to Jamie, so stop to scary us with your patents.

The idiot decision about the Ribbon UI is just another proff of the level of evil people at M$

Thanks to god, there are some really good developers inside the company, because that day that you lost that, you are in the final.

This is just sad... :(

Isn't this what you expect from Microsoft? Microsoft's Anders Heilsburg has been arrogant for 10 years about C# claiming he designed a new language. Microsoft's Scott Gutherie has been arrogant for 5 years that ASP.Net is better than PHP/Ruby. Microsoft's Rick Lavant has been arrogant for 2 years about VSTS being innovative. Now Microsoft's Jason Weber is being arrogant about Visual Studio. We just need someone to be arrogant about .Net platform and we'll have a full house. Anyone?

I know nobody wants to hear this but I don't understand why surprised by this kind of thing.  This is the standard operating procedure for MS.

I've never understood why anyone would choose to get close to MS.  It's like playing with a grown lion.  The lion might seem nice until it eats your face.

Stop creating stuff for M$ products; if you had created an Eclipse plugin, you would not be in this situation. Play with fire, and you'll get burned.

The way i see it the best you'll be able to do is argue about the fact that Microsoft made it hard enough to technically prevent people from installing extensions into Visual Studio Express.. So, even if you're willing to go down that path, it's only a matter of time untill they come up with better way to stop people using 'the hole'...

Good luck Jamie!

Love your product btw.

Pingback from  Microsoft vs TestDriven.NET - 31 May 2007 - TestDriven.NET by Jamie Cansdale

Well, the license applies of course only for the User... If you don't use the Express editions yourself, you're not obliged to this license. Of course your users do...

And it may be illegal to distribute applications that help users circumvent program limitations, but this depends on where you are living.

In you position, I would (at least for some time) take down the whole product site, say you will support SharpDevelop, and say you will sue MS for the time you couldn't sell your SW because of the take-down!

@Michael:

I quote:

We can all see how you've hacked your way into C# Express and could easily make the same hacks.  There's nothing creative or brilliant about your hack.

Now, what's his hack? If it's so blatantly obvious that 100's of developers who have never seen TestDriven.NET can see it, could you expand on what exactly it is? Would you care to point out how exactly he hacked VS? Can you show where he's calling an undocumented (not publicly available) method.

Until that's proven, the old "innocent until proven guilty" still holds true.

My daily job is a Java developer. Specifically building plug-ins for Eclipse. The actual value and need for Java, in my opinion, died in 2001 when C# was released. However, my company and clients want it, and it pays the bills.

Why does my company build plug-ins in Java for Eclipse? I have strongly argued for plug-ins for VS for a long time. The reality is that we need a *free*, *extendable* platform that we are allowed to redistribute. VS Express gets close; however, the fact that extensions are not permitted is the deal killer.

Microsoft: you are hurting yourself and the .Net community. Supporters try to back your technologies, but you either intentionally disable key functionality or push people away. Surely you can go better than this. As a start, let this one go.

Did Microsoft Violate TestDriven.NET's EULA to Defend Its Own EULA?

Jamie Cansdale recently wrote about some legal troubles he has with Microsoft. We were in the middle

Jamie, I always found your work great.

Today I discover that you are also able to stay on the point you believe is right regardless of what the others are saying to you.

This confirms me two things:

- may be you are not that smart in business as

this could obviously hurt your company.

- You are a remarkable man and you deserve that every serious developer  helps you even those who do not care at all about your software not working on vs express editions.

I just bought my licence today, I know this doesn't make a big difference but it is the only way to say "Thank you"

Pingback from  Morning Brew #18

I've used, and loved, TestDriven.Net. TestDriven.Net made it possible to really get into the TDD flow inside Visual Studio: test-red-code-green-refactor-test. I can't say enough good things about it. Seriously cool stuff. So this situation stuns and saddens me. Jamie, can you clarify something for me: TestDriven.Net is just a plugin that uses the public APIs to connect NUnit to Visual Studio, right? So the basis of their complaint is really that their express edition supports the same plugin architecture that the other editions do? And that means that anyone who writes and releases plugins for Visual Studio could find themselves at the receiving end of some nasty attention from MS lawyers? If my assumption that TestDriven.Net relies on public APIs is correct, I'm trying to figure out which part of PUBLIC API Microsoft isn't understanding. Augh!! If there is anything the community can do for you, I hope you'll let us all know.

Each day I move further away from Microsoft. Perhaps I will be MS free in 5 years.

Pingback from  Peter J. Fitzgibbons » FUD all over again... This time with Testing!

What is this world coming to!  Rather than echo other comments I agree with most notably the contemplation of DevDevDev but only if you read the small print can you be one of our DevDevDevs but the juxta position of this company is killing its brand, for me at least... how can one read the words of John Lam with a straight face regarding his recent post (iunknown blog) in reply to Martin Fowler's warning to Microsoft when devs like you get treated like this.

What I'm totally at a loss to here is the concept of 'legal addons' vs. 'illegal addons' with VS.NET: why on earth would a dev want/need to know about that - this is a key reason for going open - devs do their jobs and managers avoid legal headaches.  Dare I say the term 'hacking' has come full circle here i.e. before hacking meant the dodgy stuff, then hacking became the good stuff and now it appears it's the bad stuff either way.

WTF!!

So what do you think? weblogs.asp.net/.../microsoft-vs-testdriven-net-express.aspx

If Microsoft let this ride, everyone would make their products work on Express edition. Then why would you buy professional?

They're not being greedy, they need money to support continued development.  YOU'RE being greedy.

Jamie -

Unfortunately, you are running into what happens when your platform provider sees you as a profit center (sell more copies of Visual Studio) vs. a partner who is making the platform a better place.

Contrast this with - gasp! - Apple: Apple gives away its tool set with each and every copy of Mac OS X. You have it right out of the box.

And if you want to extend it, guess what: Apple doesn't come after you and try to shut you down.

Of course, Microsoft could easily solve this problem: allow vendors who distribute "Express Versions" of their products for free (as you do) to extend Express.

Has anyone from Microsoft noticed - based on their postings it doesn't appear to be the case - that for non-professional/hobbyist/educational developers (the folks who use Express) that you aren't charging them a thin dime? Aren't you in line with the "ethos" of the Express product?

Microsoft, get a clue! If you can't find one, I will give you one for free - just like Jamie does with TestDriven.NET!

Yours,

Jordan Dea-Mattson

The relevant clause from the EULA: "You may not • work around any technical limitations in the software;" Two points: - If TestDriven.NET works via a documented API, then VC Express clearly does not have a technical limitation that MS are claiming, and you are not working around anything. - If we accept that there is a technical limitation here, then "work around" could easily be read as "do anything to/with your project that VC Express itself can't do," which would include, for example, running NUnit.

Pingback from  sideline.ca  » .Net Dollars

Jamie,

I read through all of the emails you listed on your own blog - and I must admit, I believe you are wrong.

Microsoft made it very clear that the Express edition is not support to support any add-ins - irregardless of what the license says, they are the owners of the product and they made it clear in all of those emails that you were in violation of their licensing agreements with the add-in.  The add-in API is a privelage and not a right for developers to use - it is an API that Microsoft owns the rights to, not the developers developing to it.

I loved how Microsoft was wanting to reach an amicable solution, but the only solution they would accept is the one in which they win.

Pingback from Space Babies » Microsoft hates unit tests

Pingback from  Adventures on Rails   ::  Microsoft makes me sick

Two words : Categorical Imperative I think it's bad form MS is being so draconian. My Sympathies. However: 1. I would hate to see you sued into the dark ages. I like your product, many in the community use it and like it as well. Don't be a martyr, it will serve as a disservice to your customers. 2. Other venders and plug-ins makers follow the rules. You undermine them when you violate the terms. 3. By violating thier terms of agreement you indirectly show your approval of people who violate your terms of agreement. Thus devaluing your product in the eyes of your paying customers. This doesn't exuse MS behavior though. Good luck.

(also posted at http://blogs.msdn.com/danielfe/archive/2007/06/01/testdriven-net-and-express-technical-information.aspx ) I have read the license and have seen the clause about not circumventing technical limitations. This clause may not be enforceable in the face of standard reverse engineering practice. However, that may be a moot point unless one can prove that TestDriven.NET can only be produced by using software released under that license (or under a license with significantly equivalent terms). If it were produced by any other tool, then the VS Express EULA would have no bearing. VS6 may not have that term. (I haven't checked the randomly located flock of EULAs scattered all over it.) GCC does not. Et c. So it would appear that the first requirement is that MS show that the EULA term was in effect for the production of TestDriven.NET and the second requirement is for its developer to show that it wasn't (or no longer is).

There's some nasty shit going on between Jamie and Microsoft . It's a bummer, and I hope things work

There is a cold chill in the air today. For those of you that don't pay attention in the developer world,

Dude -- while this situation sucks a little for you, I can't help but think that you brought this on yourself. I read the entire email trail: the purpose of MS prohibiting extensions to VS Express is pretty obvious (legal butt-covering aside). If you go to court on this, and let's say you win -- what's to prevent MS from just pulling the VS Express SKU altogether to prevent revenue loss? Stop being a pig-headed dev. They asked nicely, now do the decent thing and comply.

Pingback from  Kaizenlog  » Blog Archive   » [Slashdot] Stories for 2007-06-02

Pingback from  Nobody’s Life » SKU and stuff…

I wasn't sure if I should comment on this, but the power of Agile and good programming compels me. I

Pingback from  MSDN Blog Postings · Treading on thin ice can be fun

Yes. This is the follow up to a post yesterday about the TestDriven.NET spat with Microsoft. I have thought

I reviewed the EULA on TestDriven.NET and it seems you would not allow me to use the software in any way not expressly permitted in the license agreement. No where in the license agreement does it allow me to extend your product- only to use it. It seems you make the same claims and I would expect you to expect me to follow them. ---------------------------------- Except as expressly permitted in this Agreement, Licensee shall not, and shall not permit others to: (i) modify, translate, create derivative copies of or copy the Software (other than one backup copy which reproduces all proprietary notices), in whole or in part; (ii) reverse engineer, decompile, disassemble or otherwise reduce the Software to source code form; (iii) distribute, sublicense, assign, share, timeshare, sell, rent, lease, grant a security interest in, use for service bureau purposes, or otherwise transfer the Software or Licensee’s right to use the Software; (iv) remove or modify any copyright, trademark, or other proprietary notices of Mutant affixed to the media containing the Software or contained within the Software; or (v) use the Software in any manner not expressly authorised by this Agreement.

Pingback from  One Inspired   ::  Really?

Man !! They made you famous and now you are known to the whole world !!

Next steps seem clear: 1) Microsoft should show exactly which clause of the license they believe is in breach. 2) Jamie should explain how what he is doing is not a hack, and detail the publicly available methods he is using for integration. 3) Microsoft should have to prove that what he is doing is a hack, and detail the undocumented methods he is using for integration. 3) Microsoft should explain how PopFly integration into Express is different than TestDriven.Net integration into Express.

...and shouldn't Microsoft have to assume the responsability for limiting integration into a product through their code, as it is their product?

What can you say to this? When MS released Express it was made clear in their messaging through blogs.msdn.com and channel 9 that Express was crippled in terms on extensibility and it was pretty easy to infer that they'd not want their selling point for the $$$ versions to be compromised by someone creating tools for Express, especially tools that compete with the features in their $$$ offerings.

Reading between the lines, Jamie, even if a Microsoft developer was the truest blue of all with a wall full of MVPs, a Microsoft whim could wipe out your revenue in an instant. Who on earth could afford a patent attorney grade lawyer at £500/hr+ to defend even the most specious claim. And this is perhaps is the point. If Microsoft developers switch allegiance to purely open source, then it's Microsoft v a whole movement, not one company in Finchley.

Jamie, Isn't it possible to create a stand-alone version of TD.net for Express users? This tool could then be started from the 'External Tools' section and even been started with a shortcut key. Of course this isn't as nice as a plug-in that's integrated into the IDE, but at least keeps you out of a lot of trouble. :-S

TestDriven.NET

OK, the reprint of the Visual C# 2005 Express Edition EULA has all of the information. The important language is in clause 9. The attorney's letter to you also quotes a portion of that clause. Now, when I first installed an Express Edition, I noticed that clause and it was clear to me what that was about. What is so hard about that? Many of us started as hobbyists, many of us are still enthusiasts as well as professionally-experienced. Most of us are not so stubborn as to jeopardize our business and livelihood.

На этот раз Microsoft против TestDriven . Net . До суда дело, вроде, еще не дошло, но "личная" переписка

Saw this post by the creator of TestDriven.NET Very irked with the response that M$ has given Jamie.

Pingback from  Microsoft ???????????? TestDriven.NET » Outsourcing stories

Wow...!!

This is so awesome, you've really managed to hit their "soar toes" on this one...

I've just got one thing to say; HOLD ON!!

There's 6 billion people on this planet supporting you on this case!!

( !! running to my blog to create a blogpost that's about this exact issue... !! )

.t

I've written a sympathi blog about the issue here; ajaxwidgets.com/.../waking_the_bear.bb

I must just say that this is just the latest of a long chain of insults from the largest exploiter in the world trying to exploit a small independant vendor for trying to commit the "crime" of earning money on their platform!

Man am I glad we've got Mono support now...!

.t

The reports of Microsoft's death are greatly exaggerated

Pingback from  Steve Loughran: TestDriven.Net | Server software

I don't have a dog in this fight, but here's something you might want to know.

There's an important principle in English common law regarding the interpretation of contracts. Basically it says that "vagueness is to be resolved against the party which introduced it." Ie, if MS writes a contract with a vague clause, they can't rely in the vagueness of the clause to prevail in court.

It's a great principle -- it makes a certain amount of sense, the precedents are clear and it's often overlooked by lawyers who should know better.

I can't remember a citation. But it should be easy to find using the usual reference tools.

Well, not to sound rude or conceited because I know where hobbyists, students, etc come from.. but $120 isn't a lot for a development platform. If you want to be a professional guitarist, you have to buy a guitar and amp. If you want to be a mechanic, you have to buy tools. If you want to win the Tour de France, better go through a few bicycles. Why is software any different? Are we *owed* a free development platform? Why do we feel entitled? Because you could avoid buying Powerbuilder or VC++ and install unix for access to a C compiler?

My advice is to drop Express support. If someone wants to use your tool, then they'll buy the appropriate software. It's in their best interest.

Sure, Microsoft could have handled the communication a lot better, but the end result will be the same.

Good luck. I can't see how your violating the EULA and fighting is the right thing to do. Well done.

I congratulate you on standing firm on this issue. Your product is excellent and is a fundamental aid to the construction of quality software. MS, by seeking to disallow the use of TD.Net in the express products is really saying "we don't give a shit about software quality" right at grass roots level in a tool that is often used to educate. Shame on MS.

With any public company, it's always going to be about money, whatever "it" is. Until you realize that and take the cynical view of EVERY transaction, you will be disappointed. Learn or suffer. You're a fool to continue supporting a company's product who plainly means you harm and will cheerfully ruin your life for the sake of money. You'll be bankrupted by legal fees regardless of the outcome of this quixotic fight. Give it up now while you're still solvent. Next time if you want to tweak Microsoft's nipple, distribute your hacks anonymously instead of painting a target on your chest.

Okay, you can't "work around technical limitations" of the product. So: 1) I can't use an external spell checker to make sure I'm spelling things right? (Assuming MS don't have a spell checker in the program). 2) I can't link to a web service to display the latest exchange rates in my program? (VS doesn't support exchange rates as standard, it's a technical limitation) 3) I can't design the flow of the program on pen & paper? (I don't believe VS includes drawing tools, nor pen & paper - another technical limitation) 4) I can't link to dll's I or others have written to add extra functionality not possible in express alone? I'm sure other programmers could come up with better examples than mine, but it seems to me that this clause is going to be hard to enforce. Exactly what is the difference between a technical limitation and a feature they didn't include? And what gives them the right to say what you can & can't do with the product? The car analogy in the other comments seems very appropriate here. The very point of programming is to make the computer do something it couldn't do before, something they're actually encouraging you to do by releasing this product. Also, doesn't VS have a service pack? Surely that works around several technical limitations? If the licence for visual studio or the service pack doesn't explicitly state it's allowed, then by Microsoft's argument, the EULA prevents users from installing MS' own service pack as it means the customer is working around "technical limitations" in the product. According to MS, SP1 "offers customers improvements in responsiveness, stability and performance for Visual Studio 2005". Sounds like that's getting round several technical limitations to me. Ditto the SDK: "In order to use Visual C++ Express to build Win32 applications and leverage the powerful set of core Windows API components, you'll need to download and install the Microsoft Platform SDK.". So, without the SDK VS Express has numerous technical limitations, but Microsoft encourage you to work around these? How exactly is an end user supposed to know which "technical limitations" they are allowed to work around, and which they are not? And how is this different from reading documentation online and finding out how to extend visual studio? Are developers expected to check every idea past microsoft now to find out if they're allowed to implement it? Surely a good lawyer could take this and point out that the EULA is nonsensical?

err... another point. If the EULA says you can't work around technical limitations in VS express, I don't see how you have a problem so long as you personally don't use VS Express. I believe MS long ago gave you a full licence of Visual Studio. Provided you only use your program with that, and not with the express version you're in the clear. It sounds like the EULA attempts to restrict how you can use the program. I don't see anything in there saying you can't use it to develop extensions for other people to run :-D

Pingback from  Microsoft vs The Little Guy | Ugh!!’s Greymatter Honeypot

maybe we should get an underground anti-MS public visual propaganda campaign going.  As i know very little about programming, and only marginally more about law, reppin' you hard is the most i can do, apart from big upping your luck et al.

Only kidding ;)

Dont let the B"£%"£$%ds grind you down. Hope you fight it as it has no basis to take you to court. hope they burn

You clearly have a lot of guts and integrity, and, I would guess, are a heck of a developer. Hopefully this won't sidetrack you too much from doing the things you want to do. Take care of yourself through all this, Jamie.

There's a gang of us Ireland-side hoping they don't make an example of you (some micro$ofties included!) - good luck dude!

eulas, express, and lawyers oh my

Funny, it's very easy to pick out the posts of people who were made to write answers her by M$, either directly or indirectly.

If you stand to suffer great personal loss, either personal or financialy, then don't bother, take your tallent elsewere, where it will be apriciated.

4 those who don't understand; Your not actually supposed to be able to do anything useful with Express Edition, it's only meant to draw you away from any competing products, and potentially make you purchase a M$ product, but even if you don't, atleast you wont be supporting Linux or opensource, and you will need a M$ operating system to run it, so they figured they win either way.

I'm particularly sadned by the fact that M$ hires so many tallented people, and then instead of competing in the market place by showing their great skill and innovating; from the huge potential, they will instead use every dirty trick in the book to get an unfair and in that case very undeserved advantage. They do with lawyers what they should be doing by simply beeing better and smarter than everyone else, they already compeete from a very uneven playing field....what more do they need to win "fairly"

Why waste your time?  Go work on Mono where you'll be appreciated.

Excuse my language but I’m not a native English speaker and I’m not even a c# developer but i think i sort of understand what is going on...

I have read through almost all correspondence and i noticed how the ms guy just is a snake. When you disabled the support, ms got what they wanted and wanted to ditch you. They didn't even have the courtesy to reply on you mail. They were happy with you when you complied 100% with their wishes but as soon as you have your own opinion, they can have a 1000 others in your place. (warning to other developers !)

This kind of business practices might be very common for companies like ms, but eventually the truth comes out and a company like google comes by which will beet ms on all fronts :).I hope this will be sooner rather then later.

I want to express my support to you. It is such a shame how a nice hobby eventually became sort of a nightmare. But don't you ever regret the steps you took, this nightmare has only been caused by ms' greed. I really hope this won't get to you to much. With all your actions it shows you have real integrity and for that you already got a lot of support.

I know you don't need advice from me or anyone else, but if i were you and nothing works out, i would consider google as a new employer. I’m sure they have a spot for such a good developer like you, it would also make some good headlines and make those ms snakes a little angry (now that would be a nice thing to see wouldn't it ;) ). Maybe, if you are lucky, the google legal representation might help you out since the ms case is very weak, and they probably got a lawyer or 2 to spare for this cause.

Regards and strength to you for the time to come

Jamie Cansdale, developer of TestDriven.NET is currently embroiled in what could be the start of a legal fight with Microsoft, regarding him having extended Microsofts Visual Studio Express products. Admittedly the EULA (which are allegedly on shaky ground

Keep up the good work, Jamie.  I love your TestDriven.net, but more importantly, I like the way you have handled all of the correspondence and corporate strong-arming you have gotten from MS.

Let me just propose that if it does come down to legal action from Microsoft that you simply move your talent to a community that's got your back.  Could be Java, Ruby, Python, whatever.  At any rate, I think there's a lot of truth in Paul Graham's claim that Microsoft is Dead, <www.paulgraham.com/microsoft.html>.  Especially given how they have acutely misunderstood the value TestDriven.net adds to the .NET platform.

While it seems that Jamie has been a little obtuse in dealing with this issue, I think it is clear that the only "safe" development platforms for the student or hobbyist to use or contribute back too, are those with an open license.  

Seriously this seems a dangerous playground for a hobbyist.  Go enhance eclipse, or rails, or something.  The competition is a bit tougher there, but unless you inadvertently infringe on a patent, you won't have people telling you what you can and can't do with your code.

Odd...  is *Refactor* NOT a third party product, with a free SKU and a purchased SKU that extends Express and non-Express versions respectively?

License terms like "You may not work around any technical limitations in the software" is a big can of worms if the licensor can interpret it this broadly.  

All kinds of common workarounds ("print to pdf" printer drivers come to mind - this allows apps that know nothing of pdf documents to create one.) are commonly used to "work around any technical limitations in the software"

There must be hundreds of similar and very common so called "hacks" that people employ every day with software that is crappy by accident, or intentionally crappy by design to make it do what the user wants it to do.  

Workarounds are a daily part of software user's epxerience.

Feature limiting seems like a problem between the two parties involved in such a license, not something that a third party product has to care about.  If Jamie only made one version that extended the software in the same way regarless of the SKU, it would be between Microsoft and the express users whether or not the user chose to use such a product despite the terms of that user's license.

I guess such vague license terms are really just a safeguard that lets them use the threat of legal action if they decide it is in their best interest.  The fact that it's taken a year and half to reach the brink of legal action shows that Microsoft is playing really nice (huh?), or they know that they have a really weak case, and don't want to get their favorite vague clause stuck down in a precedent.

Uno de las bases en la que se sustenta .NET es su comunidad. Es difícil encontrar detrás de una tecnología

Uno de las bases en la que se sustenta .NET es su comunidad. Es difícil encontrar detrás de una tecnología

Uno de las bases en la que se sustenta .NET es su comunidad. Es difícil encontrar detrás de una tecnología...

Uno de las bases en la que se sustenta .NET es su comunidad. Es difícil encontrar detrás de una tecnología

Isn't Microsoft violating its own EULA by making Popfly add-on work in VS Express line?

www.popfly.ms/.../ExplorerHelp.aspx

If we took a non-software based example, let’s say a company which is selling clothes and also wardrobes: "We are giving away a mini-wardrobe for free. But we do not allow you to put in any other clothes that are not branded as ours". So would we sue all the other clothes making companies just because they are making clothes which are "compatible" with this mini-wardrobe? No, at least if we're not MS. And if we should still sue anyone, it would be people who put those clothes in. Although in any case suing sounds not only stupid but also desperate. One more example just popped out: "We are putting this nice picture for everybody to view for free. But you have to wear our glasses to view it. If you're not wearing our glasses and you're still looking at it, we will sue you!".

First of all, it should be clear from reading EULA which actions are allowed and which ones are not. Secondly, who is responsible for companies not publishing stupid EULAs which do not conform to simple moral human rights? If I can write anything there, then I'll be able to sue anyone just for reading EULA.

This whole case feels so stupid, that I myself am feeling stupid by being NET developer.

So by now most people would have heard about the ruckus that's going on in the blogosphere regarding...

Preliminary thoughts on TDD with MSTest in Orcas

Naysawn , the PM for MSTest, asked that I take a look at the new unit testing features of Orcas, after

Pingback from  Charles M. Carroll Personal Blog  &raquo; Blog Archive   &raquo; Revitalizing IT and The Web: Attracting New vs. Pleasing Old Timers

I'm not going to be like EVERY OTHER DIMWIT (you know who you are) who's posted saying that MS is wrong, or you're wrong.

At first, I read this and I thought "wow, you poor bastard."  I felt you were getting screwed over by forces beyond your control.  Then, I read some things on MS blogs regarding this, and I thought "you're being an idiot."

So after giving it some thought (about 2 microseconds) here's my 2 cents:

1.  You're a victim of circumstance and a very very very stupid choice of wording by Microsoft and they should be held accountable for their stupidity.  Hopefully public opinion, etc... will show them the error of their ways.

2.  At this point you're just being bloody stubborn.  They gave you what you wanted, they pointed out the part of the EULA, apparently it's section 9.  OK, it's poorly worded and leaves a LOT open to interpretation.  But buddy that door can swing both ways, and with the weight of an 800 pound gorilla pushing on the other side, you're gonna get crushed.  It may not be right, fair, moral, etc... but you are just not going to stop it by this little show of defiance.  

The only thing I'd like to know is do they really have jurisdiction over you?  You being in the UK and so on.  Does it apply to you?  The EULA does explicitly state that laws will override the EULA when applicable.  That might be a point of contest there.

But in the end it really doesn't matter if you could win the court case (and there's a chance of that, a better than most type of chance even), but they can litigate you into oblivion and the case would never even see the light of day.  Who would that hurt?  Microsoft?  Hell no, they could buy and sell you a trillion times over.  However you would suffer greatly without the satisfaction of even facing them in court and making your case.  Is it worth it?  There are bigger and better things to fight about.

Hmmmmmmmmm ...

I've come late to the party, but here's an additional few cents <smile> ...

1)   The EULA is essentially an 'adhesion contract' [your attorney will get this], so you must abide by it ...

2)   However ... since you must abide by it, you are entitled to full, complete and clear discolure of not only the terms of the contract, but also the *meaning of those terms* and specific information on how they apply to you.  Simply ask Microsoft for a full, complete and clear list of the limitations of the product ... and ask the Judge [or Magistrate, depending on how this is being handled] for an injunction against Microsoft taking any action(s) against you until they have provided this list to you ... [don't forget to make sure that the court should also see & accept this list as meeting the appropriate criteria for full, complete and clear disclosure].

Good luck, keep fighting the good fight !

It is wearisome attempting to add the time we've consumed looking for home security alarm websites.

Big Brother is watching you. I downloaded the express edition of web developer and also read the microsoft fine print which says this software has NO commercial restriction. Microsoft are making money hand over fist and they want to stand on the little guy coz they see a good idea and want it shutdown to let their commercial interests override the needs of others. So what are they supposed to be going back on their written word now. Where's the justice ?

Once you dig up the facts you were seeking out, you can put it to work.

I read through your emails and I am not sure what your issue is.  You are integrating with a software product that was developed by a company.  That is their IP.  Seems to me like you are just being a punk and basking a little in all of the "victim" attention.  When you say you are going to do something you should do it...

Pingback from  Mike Azocar&#8217;s Blog  &raquo; Blog Archive   &raquo; The Test Driven .Net Scandal (*gasp*)

Pingback from  Echoes of Microsoft &raquo; Microsoft vs TestDriven.Net Express

The average individual would think that spending the time to obtain news on this topic of interest is a waste of time.

Pingback from  motorcycle &raquo; Microsoft vs TestDriven.Net Express

Having a connection to boundless authorities referring to this is wonderful.

Pingback from  Developer News  &raquo; Blog Archive   &raquo;  Microsoft vs Mozilla Javascript wars My comment is here. Note

The most intelligent course of action is to do your statistical study completely.

Wow!  What happened to those people?  This is actually the first time that I encountered harassment of a developer.  But don’t you smell something fishy?  I personally think you’ve worked into something that is in competition with something they wish they have in-house.  

Pingback from  Developer News  &raquo; Blog Archive   &raquo;  Silverlight; and coffee Two hours in Starbucks with coffee and

Pingback from  Charles Mark Carroll Blog  &raquo; Blog Archive   &raquo; Ideas to take VSNetCodePrint to Next Level

MS is right on this an Jamie is wrong. Since the express editions have been released it has been know that add-in were not allowed.  In addition, Jamie did write the whole program using C# express.  Just disable support for the express edition and get on with making TestDriven.Net even better.

Maybe instead of getting into a pissing match with MS and just comply with a simple request, you should have worked with them. As another poster suggested it could have turned into some great opportunities for you.  Now you have burned some bridges that you cannot undo.

As far as your MVP status, this title is based on contributions to the MS developement community and being a good spokes person for MS development product.  By making this public you obviously did not do that.  Your product also promoted "hacking" the VS Express edition so get you add-in to work.  So other developer could say if you do it as an MVP, then why can't I.  MVP are examples to all other MS developers.

Not surprisingly, the year 2007 started with January. Microsoft and Ford launched SyncMyRide.com during...

Not surprisingly, the year 2007 started with January . Microsoft and Ford launched SyncMyRide.com during

Pingback from  Developer News  &raquo; Blog Archive   &raquo;  New Year Resolutions It is coming to that time of

With all due respect to all those who think Microsoft is right in this battle, I respectfully disagree.

I think it's just plain wrong for Microsoft to disallow Unit Testing as part of the Express editions.

I have great respect for Jamie's work; I think it's useful, and I think it should be allowed in the Express versions.  They are already limited enough.  Unit testing is a basic feature of software development.

That's what I'd say, and I hope that if Microsoft is responsive enough to do any survey on this topic they will find that most developers would agree.  In fact, they took the first step by including unit testing in the pro version of VS 2008.

Pingback from  Developer News  &raquo; Blog Archive   &raquo;  Microsoft vs TestDriven.Net ExpressThere are a few things I need

The most accurate learn to play guitar fast news may take a little time to hit upon.

Pingback from  unauthorized online access to computer washington state law

Сегодня, одной из самых результативных методик раскрутки сайтов в сети, становится размещение оригинальных статей. База статей предоставляет всем любым из вариантов размещать статью в должной рубрике. Этот проект предполагает постоянное размещение каждой статьи на независимой странице, с оригинальными тегами и неограниченными  способами  по ее видоизменению. Подробнее смотрите на <a href=knigast.ru/>%D0%A0%D0%B0%D0%B7%D0%BC%D0%B5%D1%89%D0%B5%D0%BD%D0%B8%D0%B5 статей</a>

В последнее время, одной из наиболее действенных технологий раскрутки веб сайтов, является размещение самобытных статей. Наш каталог статей санкционирует всем, кто занимается продвижением сайтов любым из вариантов размещать статью в подобающей рубрике. Данный каталог предусматривает бессрочное нахождение любой статьи на отдельной странице, со своими тегами и постоянными  способами  по ее редактированию. Смотрите на <a href=http://writeart.ru/>Сборник статей</a>

Pingback from  Developer News  &raquo; Blog Archive   &raquo;  Microsoft vs TestDriven.Net ExpressThere are a few things I need

Pingback from  Developer News  &raquo; Blog Archive   &raquo;  Microsoft vs TestDriven.NET - 31 May 2007I have just received

Pingback from  Developer News  &raquo; Blog Archive   &raquo;  Mentat Technologies ships DreamCoder for Oracle 3.0 Mentat Technologies has

Work from home online.

В последнее время, одной из наиболее действенных методик продвижения сайтов в сети, является размещение самобытных статей. Книга статей позволяет всем, кто занимается продвижением сайтов любым из вариантов располагать статью в отвечающей рубрике. Этот проект подразумевает постоянное размещение любой статьи на автономной странице, со своими тегами и неограниченными  путями  по ее модифицированию. Смотрите на <a href=bookarticles.ru/>%D0%9F%D1%80%D0%BE%D0%B4%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B6%D0%B5%D0%BD%D0%B8%D0%B5 статьями</a>

Pingback from  Developer News  &raquo; Blog Archive   &raquo;  The men from Nokia sing Linux praises  According to a

Сейчас, одной из наиболее эффективных методик продвижения сайтов, является размещение своеобразных статей. Наш каталог статей дает возможность авторам сайтов любым из вариантов размещать статью в надлежащей рубрике. Этот сайт подразумевает непрерывное расположение Вашей статьи на независимой странице, с оригинальными тегами и достаточными  путями  по ее изменению. Подробнее на <a href=http://firstart.ru/>Тексты статей</a>

Pingback from  Developer News  &raquo; Blog Archive   &raquo;  Acelet SuperScheduler, SuperWatchdog go open source Acelet&#8217;s Super with SuperScheduler

Pingback from  Developer News  &raquo; Blog Archive   &raquo;  Final Skynet satellite launched An advanced satellite that will improve

В настоящее время, одной из наиболее эффективных методик раскрутки сайтов в сети, является написание неповторимых статей. Новый сайт статей дает возможность всем, кто занимается продвижением сайтов разными вариантами размещать статью в должной категории. Данный каталог предусматривает пожизненн

ое расположение любой статьи на независимой странице, с оригинальными тегами и достаточными  возможностями  по ее редактированию. Подробнее на <a href=statyaweb.ru/>%D0%A1%D0%B1%D0%BE%D1%80%D0%BD%D0%B8%D0%BA статей</a>

Pingback from  Developer News  &raquo; Blog Archive   &raquo;  Using Forms Authentication with Membership Providers in ASP.NET 2.0     This

Pingback from  Developer News  &raquo; Blog Archive   &raquo;  Microsoft vs TestDriven.Net ExpressThere are a few things I need

Pingback from  Developer News  &raquo; Blog Archive   &raquo;  Best Practices for Object/Relational Mapping and Persistence APIs By Mario

Pingback from  Developer News  &raquo; Blog Archive   &raquo;  Murphy   s Week - 14/07/2007 Tuesday I&#8217;m due down to London

Pingback from  Developer News  &raquo; Blog Archive   &raquo;  Autosuggest testbox with results from sql    Hey All, I am

Pingback from  Developer News  &raquo; Blog Archive   &raquo;  Microsoft vs TestDriven.Net ExpressThere are a few things I need

Pingback from  Developer News  &raquo; Blog Archive   &raquo;  Integrity Testing for Software Professionals By Donna L. Davis Before

Pingback from  Developer News  &raquo; Blog Archive   &raquo;  Microsoft vs TestDriven.Net ExpressThere are a few things I need

Pingback from  Developer News  &raquo; Blog Archive   &raquo;  Microsoft vs TestDriven.Net ExpressThere are a few things I need

Pingback from  Developer News  &raquo; Blog Archive   &raquo;  I&#8217;ll be on holiday until 6th October hence any comments

Pingback from  Developer News  &raquo; Blog Archive   &raquo;  The Covenant? Looks like the covenant are up to their

Pingback from  Developer News  &raquo; Blog Archive   &raquo;  Microsoft vs TestDriven.Net ExpressThere are a few things I need

Pingback from  Developer News  &raquo; Blog Archive   &raquo;  Microsoft vs TestDriven.Net ExpressThere are a few things I need