TestDriven.NET by Jamie Cansdale

Just because they don't offer unit testing in their Express product doesn't mean that you can't. If Microsoft won't tell you which parts you violate, screw em. If they keep giving you flak, let me know and I'll point it out on my blog. Microsoft needs to do a better job reigning in their lawyers.

Microsoft is hard at work again undoing the small good will they have managed to accumulate recently.

This seems like a Xeros machine kind of case. Technically you have never installed nor accepted VS Express EULA so I'm not sure how you could be violating something you never agreed to :) Ya, this does sound stupid.

Fight the evil empire to the last man!

Jamie,

You are always welcome to the world of open source. We have more friendly licenses.

I just don't understand how microsoft thinks it can stay relevant as long as it is abusing it users and development community. Wake up! They are your customers and allies!

Good luck,

Jack.

@Jack - GPL -- Friendly???

Whatever it is, I suggest you to seek for professional legal advice if you decided to fight. Also, put a paypal button up! We, as developers, would sponsor you bit by bit for your required legal fees :) Its good time to teach that bastard a good lesson! I always regret I don't use Java when I read all these :(

You can't win a legal fight with Microsoft. You'll probably be out of business before it even goes to court, because the legal fees will bankrupt you. In addition, your income (TestDriven.NET) will go down massively, because who wants to buy from a small company that is in a legal fight with Microsoft? No one wants to buy from a company that will be gone in a few months. Also, the intellectual property to your program is owned by your company. If you lose the fight, Microsoft might just take the IP over and shelf it away, and then you won't have access and can't use a single line of code of it anymore.

Fighting this is a huge risk for you, probably one that will cause your company and product to die. Is a fight over principles really worth that?

I would get your lawyer to send Microsoft's lawyer a letter which says that you'll sign if you get a letter stating that your product is not violating the EULA for the non-Express SKUs for VS 2005 and Orcas.

Wow, this is getting /.-style pathetic. It's illegal to install XP on a quad core machine, but I'm sure there is a registry hack to make it work (same HAL as 2003 server). Doesn't make it any more legal. Or I can turn the clock back on my sql server with the 120-day trial version, and have it work, but again - not legal, but it doesn't say in the EULA that you can't. why is this different? Just' cos the EULA - and if you didn't use the express SKU to write this, that EULA doesn't apply to you anyway - doesn't say you can't do, doesn't mean you can when it says elsewhere - eg the MS website - that you can't do it. Sorry, zero sympathy on this one. Seems like a battle which, if you win, you gain nearly nothing (I'd guess that more than 99% of your customers use non-express SKU's), and if you lose - or lawyers get involved at all - you lose fairly bigtime, financially. Having an angry (/.-style) mob behind you doesn't count for much when it comes to pay the lawyers bills :) Anyway.....

Keep in there Jamie.

I don't know how to get through past the block heads.  (I'm trying.)

I still feel MS are the good guys.  This Jason is just an anomaly (I hope).  (Talk about misleading, dishonest...)

I suggest that those who like TestDriven and haven't yet bought a license, BUY ONE NOW.  Lets support the guys who do a good job and innovate.

(Comment on Point Above:  I find GPL hostile, even if I'm prepared to lend a hand in truly worthwhile projects.)

I can see how they wouldn't want that functionality in the express edition, since it provides such a rich set of features. They are trying to make money, after all.

But that's all, and I don't like their original tone. The first set of letters you posted from them made me think (from a very fast read) that they were demanding that Testdriven.NET go away. At least they're saying that's not the case now.

IMO they should have offered to hire you - I like TestDriven.NET better than their built-in test tools anyway.

Microsoft vs TestDriven.NET - 31 May 2007 - TestDriven.NET by Jamie Cansdale " href="weblogs.asp.net/.../microsoft-vs-testdriven-net-31-may-2007.aspx"> Jamie Cansdale's problems with Microsoft are why, as much I've come

This is just nuts.

Microsoft once again missing the point and alienating even their hard core supporters.

I hope you have access to good lawyers.

The evil empire strikes again.

Maybe you shouldn't have displayed the letters without permission, but it's in your entire right to support express editions.

(maybe unless they can show some valid license term you're violating, yet that seems to be unlikely).

I do like Microsoft technology, but their lawyers are really ruining that image.

Seriously, give it up dude. If you cant understand the business case of offering Visual Studio Express and how you are in violation of their terms, then maybe you shouldn't be a developer at all.

They are right. You are wrong. Stop making this into a little man vs big company fight, the GPL-monkeys above are already gathering up on the silly-train. Suck it up and disable the possibility of installing it on Express, you will only loose from this conflict in the long run.

Who's the pot? Microsoft. Enough with the craziness over Jamie Cansdale 's excellent (read:must install

Pingback from  Ellis Web » Items of Interest: 2007-06-01

The problem is that visual studio 2007 will have its own testing solution. They are just protecting their property. Its a sad world. Once there was the NDOC project. That was also reimplemented by microsoft dudes. Now that project is more or less dead and the version from microsoft isn't that much better.

It's not like you are redistributing express, you just provide a download which has a feature like adding certain stuff to the express. Maybe you should make an EULA, that the end user is aware of the situation, and you wont hold any legal responsibility once someone installs it :) Its a lot easier to attack a single host than all the users you have!

cheers!

Pingback from  » Microsoft vs. TestDriven.NET

Pingback from  Ross Redux  » Blog Archive   » Free the TestDriven.Net one.

It's starting to look like you're refusing to comply out of spite and to see how far they'll take it. Perhaps now would be a good time to cave in? If they take you to court, they'll win.

If you want your peers to be able to continue using TD.NET with VS Express then open source it and wash your hands of it. If you want to continue 'owning' it, just drop Express support.

I don't like the way they have tried to push you around, but refusing to fix this isn't hurting Jason Weber and friends. It's only going to end up hurting you.

Pingback from  » Microsoft vs. TestDriven.NET

If you used a public API, as you said you did, you're in no violation whatsoever. You just created a toolkit which, oh how nice, also runs on vsexpress...

If microsoft doesn't want add-ins to work on Express, it's a simple piece of code, simply exclude the add-in manager. Gee, why didn't they do that... ?

As I said earlier: get a lawyer and do the things s/he says. This is a technical issue and it comes down to:

1) is the clause in the eula legit? Probably not

2) do you violate any eula clause at all, just because you wrote a generic piece of code which COULD be run as an add-in in express?

If they can't point you to a clause you violated, don't bother. But do get a lawyer, it will take time to prepare for what they're up to. They're currently trying to knock you down with lawyer-crap, which scares most people so they'll do what's been told in the letters. When you stand up to them, they suddenly have to make sure they've a solid case. We all know they don't.

IF they continue this to become a full lawsuit, the only thing they can ever win is the case itself, and it will be a shallow victory: with the lawsuit they'll lose a lot of the credits they've gained in the community.

"I don't like the way they have tried to push you around, but refusing to fix this isn't hurting Jason Weber and friends. It's only going to end up hurting you."

Trust me, it will hurt them badly. Bashing a respected member of the developer community, and that community is what MS needs BADLY, isn't going to give MS extra credit, on the contrary. Perhaps this Jason Weber isn't going to lose any sleep over it, but it's not about mr. Weber.

It's also not that the community will suddenly implode. However this case is a landmark case of how normal software written by a normal developer can suddenly be your own nightmare because some big-corp finds that it has to go. That's something we individual developers shouldn't and can't let go by, we have to do something about this, because eventually we run the risk of being in Jamie's position.

When teaching someone how to program, I can not imagine getting them to write code without unit tests.  TestDriven.Net lets unit test be done in a painless way, without it Visual Studio Express is not very useful for someone leaning how to program.  Do you wish to drive everyone that cares about unit testing to Java (with it’s free extendable tools)?

I am a developer that has worked with C# for the last few years, before that I worked with MFC and I have always been positive about Microsoft; I am also a Microsoft share holder.  However given the unreasonable way Microsoft has tied to use its unlimited legal budget to attach Jamie Cansdale I now understand way so many developers hate Microsoft.  

Is it safe for me as a developer without a large legal department to work with Microsoft technology?    (It will cost a lot more then I am paid in a month just to get a legal person to explain to me what one of the Microsoft licences means.)

"Is it safe for me as a developer without a large legal department to work with Microsoft technology?  "

Nail on the head.

In the interests of offering both sides of this, I'd like to highlight this blog post from Dan Fernandez, who is the Product Manager responsible for Visual Studio Express at Microsoft: blogs.msdn.com/.../visual-studio-express-and-testdriven-net.aspx

In summary - the Express editions are intended for hobbyists. It was an internal battle to make the case for giving away some pretty valuable tools for free. Part of the deal is that the Express editions do not allow extensibility, either technically (without working around some gaps) or legally (that's what the EULA states). You can agree or disagree with that, but you can't deny that it's the right of Microsoft to choose the terms under which a free tool like this can be used.

Hopefully both sides will be able to find a face-saving way out of this in private - Jamie, you do some good work, and it's a shame to see this turn into a public spat.

Pingback from  Microsoft vs TestDriven.Net Express - TestDriven.NET by Jamie Cansdale

I don't understand something here.  You wrote a tool that can be used in VS Express.  VS Express has a license that prohibits the users of that tool from attempting to overcome any of it's limitations:

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

So, aren't the users of VS Express that install your tool the real violators of the license agreement as written, and not the creator of the tool?  Unless, of course, you wrote your tool in VS Express.

@Frans - It is perfectly safe for me as developer, because Microsoft will spend countless hours of management time letting me know if I am in violation, long before any legal action is taken.

As someone who practices TDD, I was so happy to hear the VSTS would have a unit test runner built into...

@Joe: No it's not. Not if you do things which aren't in violation of anything, thus when you're NOT copying/cracking/doing something clearly illegal.

What then? You still obey? Then the world has become a world where corporates dictate the law. Perhaps in the US they do, but not in Europe.

Switch to Open Source. I did.

Microsoft's latest round of turning the screws (Vista, hardware requirements, licensing changes for their server products, etc.) means that I can spend almost any amount of time necessary to switch a client to Open Source, and they'll *STILL* get a ROI of a year, maybe two at the most.

So far I haven't found any CEO, CFO or CTO that can come up with a good reason to not switch.

The chances of the Apache group suing me because I wrote something cool that works with Apache are exceedingly slim.

Terry

Terry

"Is it safe for me as a developer without a large legal department to work with Microsoft technology?  "

Obviously not...

Put that paypal button up!

/Jonas

I'd say just take the whole thing down (or better yet, go talk to SharpDevelop about an add on) - if Microsoft doesn't want good people developing good things for their products, they should reap what they sow.

If you dine with the devil, prepare to be poisoned. It's hardly esoteric knowledge that Microsoft wraps everything up in legal knots and ribbons, and in using their technologies you need to be prepared.

I really hope Jamie wins this one and helps slay another tiny part of the dragon, but unfortunately I don't see it ending that way.. :( (When it comes to companies with lots of money, right rarely prevails over money.)

From "A Microsoft friend" above:

"Part of the deal is that the Express editions do not allow extensibility, either technically (without working around some gaps) or legally (that's what the EULA states). You can agree or disagree with that, but you can't deny that it's the right of Microsoft to choose the terms under which a free tool like this can be used."

That's not really true. The legality of EULAs is muddy at best, and unenforceable at worst. Microsoft should protect their software and remove elements of it that enable violations to take place.. which, curiously, Microsoft demands of Jamie (in the request to remove the registry activation technique)!

It is fair of Microsoft to not support trial versions of their products or to offer warranties for versions that have been manipulated in any way, but legally enforcing against a technique that doesn't involve reverse engineering or actual copyright infringement is disingenuous.

If Nissan, Toyota, or any other car company decided to legally threaten car modders, it would be seen as a nonsense.. and that's how a lot of us view this case. If you're just using what's on offer, then there's no argument of ethics.. so Microsoft should put up or shut up and prevent these features from being activated without reverse engineering being necessary.

Imagine General Motors attempting to limit what you can and cannot do to a car you bought from them. You bought the Vega ... no you cannot work on the engine. Ohh .. you bought the Corvette .. sure you can do anything you want to improve it.

I dont care if they offered the software for free ... it does not change the argument.

I agree.  You're not in violation of the EULA, assuming you haven't installed it on your copy of Express (and if you have, remove it to be in compliance).

This is like building a car and someone uses it to drive drunk.  It's not your fault that they broke the law.

Apple makes a mighty fine ripper for iTunes.  Are they in violation of any copyright laws?  No.  Am I?  Maybe.

It's all the user.

If you can afford to keep up this fight then please do. It wonderfully exposes Microsoft's ugly priorities and hopefully prevents new developers from wasting their career on that platform.

Microsoft technologies are always club-shaped.  Jamie, just dump 'em.  You'll be happier.

What if you terminate your EULA with VS Express, and compile the plugin with mono, or some other C# compiler?

Then you can't be in violation of an EULA you've never used. Better still, get someone else to compile it.

Silly Microsoft. They haven't realised that Eclipse, which is free, is a better development environment than Visual Studio. They still think it's 1997 and VS is 'teh biz'. It's actually pretty poor by modern standards.

It seems like this is a lot of smoke over nothing. The functionality TD.NET uses is part of a core product that is then modified to create the individual SKU's. It's possible at a technical level to take the entire unit testing framework from VS Team Edition and integrate it into VS 2005 Pro or below. Microsoft take that core product, and then license it in different ways.

The logical way to avoid objectionable license terms is to not use the product. If the license terms were unenforcable, it is likely that Microsoft simply would not have released the product and we'd all be worse off for it.

Quite why Jamie is unable to read the license document is somewhat beyond me. I found in about thirty seconds:

"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;"

The inability to run addons is a purposeful limitation on Microsofts part. Jamie reverse engineered addon support from a higher level version of Visual Studio 2005 and applied that to the free product in the form of registry entries that enabled his extensions to run.

Case closed. There's no entitlement on Microsofts part to give an all-singing all-dancing product and despite popular conceptions to the contrary, something for nothing is a pipe-dream.

Do I get paid lawyers fees now?

M$: Our Legal Action letters with blot out the sun. TD: Then we shall bicker in the DARK!!

I have to agree with Steve. What this has shown is that Microsoft needs to improve their handling of these issues. They should have been clear and upfront from the start. I fully agree with Microsoft having such a clause in the EULA. This debacle is a no-brainer.

I don't believe EULAs are legally binding. I avoid reading them. I do not violate copyright laws, nor do I violate contractual obligations, but EULAs that do not require a written signature are not legal contracts. They are nothing. No large software company that makes use of EULAs wants them tested in court, because when they lose then no one would be fooled by EULAs any more. Everyone would know they are meaningless. This looks like a job for Groklaw...

This morning, when following links to Jamie Cansdale's ongoing tiff with Microsoft (best of luck

"Quite why Jamie is unable to read the license document is somewhat beyond me. I found in about thirty seconds" However any reasonable person who thinks about that clause for more than 30 seconds will realise that it is meaningless. Perhaps if the EULA enumerated the specific deliberate limitations then the clause might have some meaning. It is in just about every MS product EULA BTW. For example, it is in the Vista EULA. So any developer that writes a driver for Vista (for hardware not supported out-of-the-box) is "working around a technical limitation". Only if MS decides it is so I suppose. I work around technical limitations in software every day. I'm happy to not be an MS developer.

Let us try to get this straight. 1) He created something that extends a product of theirs, adding functionally, and making easier and better to use. Q) Why shoot yourself in the foot by pissing off the very people you want to by and use your product? 2) The EULA specifically states, 'Technical Limitations', which implies he would have to alter the product in order for it work. He did not alter the product or work around it's limitations because he used publicly available and documented routines made for .NET's usage by Microsoft. Q) Why is this wrong? Does Microsoft plan on releasing their own testing module and so make this one obsolete? Patent infringement next? 3) What if he simply goes to an Open Source product and write your TestDriven.NET EXCLUSIVELY for non-Microsoft products and encourages his users to abandon Express all together? 4) EULA... Would you like to rent, not buy, that next car of yours? Careful... Altering the windows or radio is a violation and you will be sued. Alright I know this a little extreme and I understand the basic need for EULA to prevent wide-spread cost-free spread of a product. We live in a Capitalist society and when the end comes, we only really worry about Money. But until SOMEONE stands up to a Goliath and gets some LAWS written SPECIFICALLY governing the legality of a EULA and what rights it can and cannot dismiss, this type of thing will continue. Q) Who actually reads that stuff? A) Lawyers... And not 90% of End Users. Most of us, myself included, use Microsoft for one particular reason. They are what is most widely available for end users. If Microsoft wishes to remain competitive then they need to learn a new methodology. This one is only going to push more and more people AWAY from them. They already have a BAD name when it comes to dealing with patents, rights of end users, and heaven knows their lack of innovation. I think we are seeing the end of Microsoft as we know it. The 'Early' years of any large software company is fueled entirely by momentum of a particular project. In this case an Operating System. Microsoft 'stole' a lot of aspects and pieces of technology and produced a familiar and fairly idiot-styled 'point and click' user interface. Improving that has been their number one method of market share aquisition followed closely by their forays into Consoles and Games and of course, the renown Office Suite, which is their second largest Cash Cow. However as they have grown, true innovation in terms of functionally and clean code have nearly completely stalled. OsX and Linux (generally speaking) out preform Windows XP and even Vista while providing nearly limitless upgrade potential for next to no cost. Why? Is it that Linux and OSX are just that much better? Not entirely. It has a lot to do with the fact that Microsoft has lost it's focus on producing a QUALITY operating system. Gone are the days when Microsoft had to FIGHT to prove itself a valuable commodity. They simply can hire lawyers to bicker the company with lawsuits or slap them with patent infringement allegations until the lesser company folds under the pressure of Microsoft's money. Visiting Microsoft.com and you will see the prices for purchasing Visual Studio is prohibitively expensive for any starting business. The ones most likely to use the Express version and the ones most likely to upgrade later. To me, this pattern of more money for less end result is going to run Microsoft into the ground... But what was Bill care? He's made his billions. In the end, I hope that Jamie does not bow down to the congeries of legal pressure by this Goliath that is destined to Fall. I myself would gladly offer donations and any support I can.

Jamie, I cannot possibly see how you are in any way breaking the law. MS is bullying you because they have a problem with the value you are adding for the Express package. Hang in there.

The fact that Microsoft took a while to pinpoint to you which term you may be in breach of is immaterial. In fact they could have just started with the first letter. Also nothing in the email trail appears to prejudice their case. You accepted the terms and the terms preclude workarounds of any technical limitations. Not sure though if "workaround" includes extensions. However your extension appears to be predicated on a workaround. The argument that the workaround is based on a published API (that is not a hack) is also immaterial. I would just remove the support of Express from your product and let your customers know that them re-enabling your extension in Express may breach MS terms. Not sure you have to physically take away the code though; but just disable it to the extent that MS disables it's code. A disabled code piece is not a workaround or extension. Once you have complied to avert legal action, you may want to seek advice and consider legal action against MS and ask for damages. Your case may hinge on what happened before you re-enabled support for Express. the above is non-expert opinion only.

Wow, you seem so in the wrong it's hard to express. I know MS is evil and all, but give me a break, that doesn't make you a saint. You _sell_ an extension to a free version of an MS product. They ask you to stop. You make a public stink because MS is a big evil company, and won't give you help understanding how they'll try to enforce the very obvious intention around the express sku. Now some open source people leap to your support, egging you on to fight the Man! Cool ... but you are selling an add on in a comercial ecosystem. And what you are doing is deciding to piss in the well. Is your goal to get rid of the express SKU? Open source people love it because they don't like our community, but you won't get any kudos from me. Open source guys ... why are defending this guy? Would he be in the right if the agreement he was violating was the GPL, but it still made Microsoft look bad? Maybe there is something I don't understand about this disagreement. But your side just doesn't seem compelling to me.

Give in, Jamie. Kneel before great Microsoft and they may yet forgive you. Repent of your hideous sins and find redemption. Maybe they will buy you out. Maybe they will restore to you the privilege of adding value to their products for nothing. Don't listen to the open source people. They just want to use your code to violate Microsoft IP. First the Linux nerds, now you. What's a poor multibilliondollar monopoly supposed to do?

The car modder comments above are dumb. Ford and GM don't give something away. The same people that think this is ok are the same people who buy mods to get free channels on satellite or cable. Its technically possible, oh...lets find that in the eula. You know its wrong, don't BS. Lastly, its just a matter of time before open source projects run into this very same problem of people not adhering to the spirit of of the license. Just wait.

@Steve -- hate to say it but you're completely wrong. "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;" This clause completely doesn't apply. "work around any *technical* limitations in the software" well, there weren't any technical limitations, only legal ones. The api's were still there, still public, and the code still worked as documented and published. "reverse engineer, decompile or disassemble" -- again, doesn't apply. He didn't reverse engineer, decompile or disassemble. He simply used public api's. That's what they are there for. Again, it's not his problem that MS didn't take the time to actually remove functionality they didn't want used. It's still shipped/documented/available...

According to the latest update from the MS guy, TestDriven.NET injects itself into VS Express's process after it's running. Now, ___if___ that is true, then yeah it surely sounds like 'working around a technical limitation' to me. I love TestDriven.NET and would really hate to see anything happen to it. Please disable the Express functionality!

In addition, the language used in the clause 'You may not work around any technical limitations in the software.' is vague in it's meaning and applicability. Does this mean that I cannot follow any work arounds provided for bugs in visual studio? What is the context that this applies.

Your a moron (in 20/20 hindsight, not in reality) for helping Microsoft improve their software with your add-ons. Why bother with a company that obviously is happy to fuck you over when you _might_ mess up their happy multilevel licensing/pricing scemes? Screw them. How much abuse do you want to put up with? There was a time when Visual Studio was the only game in town. When it was the only reasonable feature-complete IDE in town, but that is not true anymore. What about http://www.eclipse.org/ ? Open source, cross platform, multiple language IDE _framework_. Licenses allow you to be commercial open source, freeware closed source, or whatever the hell you want. You call the shots, not some corporation's lawyers. Plus there are even add-ons for C# and whatnot, so it's not like you'd be leaving your current users out in the cold if they don't mind following you. I am no developer or anything and it's totally up to you, whatever you want. But maybe it is something worth considuring, isn't it?

Why the shit won't you post your communication to Microsoft. It appears from Microsoft's legal documentat that you responded to them. You have to post everything if you want credability. It looks like you're making a lot of this crap up. Go look at the JavaLobby discussion on this. Even those guys are starting to attack you.

My understanding Jamie released a version of his product that just happens to work with Express. He didn't do any special reverse-engineering; if MS doesn't want add-ins enabled in Express, why don't they just disable add-in integration? Unless Jamie wrote special code to make this work with Express, I don't see how this is his problem.

Wouldnt making testdriven.net free for Express solve the problem microsoft has. Just release a separate edition which is free and runs only on VS Express. Having read all the emails it looks like their main problem is that customers that have addons are complaining why they cant sell their products for Express. If TD.net is free for express I believe the problem will dissapear.

Unbelievable the idiocy I see in these comments... The EULA is *not* ambiguous. Have any of you read it? As for being enforceable, that's up to the courts, yes? For those of you stating that it is un-enforceable, sorry but unless you are a legal expert in the s/w world, your opinion carries zero weight. I have read through the email exchanges, and the EULA, I have to say that Microsoft's responses come across as measured, respectful, and accommodating. Jamie comes across as a petulant brat: what are you going to give me if I decide to take my bits down? And for those of you who are coming here and suggesting that Jamie and others refuse to play the game and come over to the "good guys" (AKA open source)... if your intent is to avoid anyone that might potentially threaten legal action - then I certainly hope that you are prepared to shy away from any business arrangement that requires a contract. Good luck with that. Big boy rules apply here; if you don't like it, clear the court...

First of all, charging for developer tools at all is really bloody stupid on MSFT's part. Secondly, Apple has included unit testing tools in Xcode since Tiger shipped (April, 2005). Does the fact that your product fills a gaping hole in their development environment piss them off or something? Tell you what: why don't you just tell MSFT to go to hell, and focus your future development efforts on the Mac or Linux, where you don't have to contend with a hostile platform vendor?

Windows Live Writer with Spelling Launcher can be downloaded here (13k). I too, like Oren, found that

According to the Olswang web-site (the MS mercenaries here) their slogan is "The best way to solve a problem is with an open mind". Perhaps _this_ is what they should advise their client. Legalities are, unfortunately, not about (moral) right or wrong, but trying to diminish the value of VS Express is in my opinion not even in Microsofts best interest. TDD is taught everywhere, and trying to exclude the Express users will only drive the students and hobbyists that the Express SKU caters for into the Java camp.

Can you read at http://www.secretgeek.net/testdrivengate.asp to see what Jason tells that Jamie must said If you were Jamie, what do you think ???

I was sad to hear of Microsoft’s lawyers attacking you. The average developer does not have the kind of legal expertise to navigate through complicated licenses and my gut feeling has been expressed by many above: you’re ok, except I think add something to your license so users know that they may be in violation of the license if they install with VS Express. This alone won’t necessary help if Microsoft persists. It’s of course Microsoft’s right to specify their own license terms but in this case due to VS’s pervasiveness as a development platform and the fact that the product in general is for developers, I believe a strong case can be made that at least Microsoft needs to write a clearer license agreement. I love using Visual Studio and I just don’t see how Microsoft is helping itself by creating bad feelings among its core developer community. We are at a stage when developers have a real pressure to follow the open source community – the pressure is real and Microsoft risks loosing a hold on a core supporting constituency. Now Google is starting to put development tools on the PC and with their championing of open source technologies (eg inviting the hero Linus to speak to them), it’s a no brainer that developers will start moving towards Google. Once that happens Microsoft will be in serious danger – the problems from competing in search will pale in comparison to loosing the developer support to Google. So now we see Microsoft bashing a decent developer like Jamie and that just isn’t right.

   Jamie, my advice for you is to try and raise your concerns with some key managers at Microsoft because I’m seeing evidence that the giant may have communication problems within the organization. The managers of several Microsoft products seem like decent guys so it’s possible they have no idea what the legal team is doing. Try and ask a renowned lawyer with experience in these kind of cases to do the case pro bono. If not, do not fight them with your own resources but re-strategize – invest those resources in improving the product or starting a new one. In any case, the kind of users seriously interested in good unit testing tools will purchase VS professional edition so just re-focus on improving the service to your core market.

Firstly, everybody needs to stop saying that "the lawyers" are doing this.  The lawyers don't blink their eyes without management approval.  This whole spat is a decision made by M$ management.  Blaming the lawyers ro this is like blaming the foot soldiers for the war.

Next, I also agree that it's the Jamie and the TD.NET user's own damn fault for getting into bed with M$.  If you use .NET and the VS tools, you have halfway sold your soul.  If you don't want to kneel down and kiss Billy's ring, then you don't be trying to add value to his product line.

Jamie,

It may hurt you to do this, and I'm sure you're proud of the work you've done on testdriven.net, but I would strongly urge you to let Microsoft have their way and abandon this product.

I would further advise you to get a Mac, pick up a copy of Aaron Hillegass's excellent introductory text on Cocoa programming, and abandon .NET.  Once you've spent a week or so with Cocoa, you'll see just how badly Microsoft fell short of the system they were trying to copy.

-jcr

<p>I quote "a Microsoft Friend" above:</p>

<p>"...you can't deny that it's the right of Microsoft to choose the

terms under which a free tool like this can be used." </p>

<p>I have one objection to the statement above. The tool is not free! As

a matter of fact, the tool is very costly as we can see in what's

happening here. </p>

<p>Every developer out there drinking the Microsoft cool-aid should ask

him/herself these two questions: "Can I afford to drop years of work

down the drain on a Microsoft's whim?" and "Can I afford to pursue legal measures

against Microsoft to protect my work?"</p>

<p>For the independent developer the answer is obvious: No!</p>

<p>Go develop

with Python on Linux or with Ruby on the Mac. Divorce

Microsoft. Seriously!

<a href="http://afreshcup.com" >Other people are already doing it.</a>

You at least won't have to put up with this kind of rubbish.</p>

At the end of the day, I bet their goal is to  bring you in and extend the functionality of Visual Studio.  Give you a fancy title, a 90k+/yr job, so they can ship 100k more units based on your ideas and concepts.  Ideas and concepts that are worth $10M+ in revenue.

MSFT did this with Sun, RealNetworks, Apple, IBM, SAP, and the entire Partner Program too.  Beware!

Somehow i hope you'd either :

- License under GPL or similar (Creativ Commons), the public can be your witness then ...

- Ask Microsoft a whole lot of money for providing additional functionality to their beloved Visual Studio, after of course making enough legal protections to make any girls nipples harder then a rock ... in fact right now they're about to make you suck something that belongs to them ...

- Start using a different C/C++ development platform

Pingback from  Hlynes.com &raquo; The Perils of Propriatary Software

It looks like your heart is in the right place Jamie. :)

Microsoft (or more appropriate, those who represent Microsoft) could have been clear from the start. Why weren't they!!??

Clarity from Microsoft would have made this situation easy to resolve. You showed them respect and dedication and they showed you how much they value their customers.

Did Jamie sign or click through an Express EULA? If no, then just ignore the MSFT letters. There is no agreement or licence. Second, did he violate the EULA? No? Then just let them fire off more paper. He can always just refuse to attend any court hearing: unless they take a case in the UK, they have no power over him. Finally, the issue is not with Jamie, but with his limited company. Even if they win a judgement, and even if they are able to enforce it in the UK courts, what does that get them? A slice of nothing, especially if in the meantime the company goes over to a LGPL licence for the software and then goes into voluntary liquidation. This reminds me so much of the McLibel trial, even if they win they lose.

Good luck mate, reading the correspondance it looks like you've been more than reasonable throughout but Microsoft have just kept responding with the line "you're not allowed to do it, don't ask us why, you're just not".

Exactly the same happened to me when I got in touch with MS to find out if I could run XP Pro OEM under a virtual machine on Linux.  XP's licenced for one computer so I'm still running it on that computer, but I'm running vmware too.

MS constantly stated that I was not allowed to do this, and that it would be in violation of the EULA.  However despite constant pressing they would never mention any specific part of the EULA I was in violation of, and reading the EULA myself I could see nothing.

It looks like the same thing's happening here.  An oversight on their part allows you to do something they don't want to happen, and they're doing their best to stop it, although you are completely within your rights.

If this was in violation of a licence agreement I'd have expected them to simply quote the relevant lines and explain why you're not allowed to do it.  Instead they ignore that part of the question and just repeat the statement that you're not allowed, without making any attempt to back it up.  When that fails they resort to threatening with their lawyers, again without any definate statement as to exactly what clause you are violating.

In my eyes that's a pretty sure sign that they have no standing to back that up.

I hope you have great legal representation because all of your correspondence leading up to your court case doesn't mean squat (no matter how hard you sell it to us).  Only you and your attorney (and M$) actually know whether or not you are violating the EULA.

You do realize M$ is basically a Govt agency now, controlling a global macro-economy?  You do realize M$ works with a special Govt branch that watches to make sure M$ practice is not violating people like you.  

Yes, jasonweber is a jerkoff, but most of them are at M$ and you need accept it and move on.  The jasonwebers tend to survive @ M$ and the Jamie Cansdales don't. I know. I was a rebel at M$ when they wanted rebels.  I finally got pushed out by the jasonwebers.

You obviously want MVP status.  You are (were?) in, man, why are you *throwing it all away* to please a select few who use Express?  Just do what M$ wants and make some damn money.  Live the dream.

The internet is on your side Jamie. Don't take microsofts bullshit.

Microsoft once was a great company. But they missed the Internet boat and now find themselves struggling to maintain revenue. For us old-timers, it's similar to what happened with IBM a couple of decades ago, when they missed the PC boat.

IBM could have crashed and burned, but managed to re-invent itself. But there was a decade or so that you just didn't want to do business with them.

That's now Microsoft. Either Microsoft will die a gory, drawn-out death, or they will struggle for years and re-emerge. Whichever happens, right now they aren't healthy to be around. Anyone who can avoid them in the next several years absolutely should.

Saw your post on Markle's blog. Been watching to see how you respond. I notice that my posting to your website <i>still<i> isn't available. Accidentally lost in the volume? Please make sure this one doesn't get lost.

I've been working on VSIP packages since 2001 and it's not hard to see what you're doing. You created a COM based Solution Extender that gets instantiated by the shell with an interface that allows you to determine the site process and start calling VSIP API's. The trust bound shell architecture means that if you can load code you can call other people's services but that doesn't mean it's right. I'm not going to use the word illegal because I don't know or care. My point is if I leave my keys on the counter you don't have the right to come into my house and take the keys and use my car without permission. We publish services to communicate between our packages and you could easily find our services but if you start using them we would have you in court so I understand where MS is coming from.

The VSIP API's have always been restricted and come with an army of MS lawyers and business managers selling packages. We know because we're just down the street from MS and hear them coming. You have to sign an agreement when you get the VSIP SDK even for the new free SDK. I'm not defending MS's license approach for the VSIP API but I'm stating the cold hard truth. When you use VSIP you have to play by the rules. The code you posted for Jason Weber shows you using VSIP which is not the public add-in API you claim.

Good luck with this train wreck and please stop pretending to be a poor innocent unknowing save the world developer. You're a creative individual who dug around until you found a way to circumvent the shells dll load to get at VSIP. You deserve lots of credit for being smart and doing good work. But you're not above the rules.

Cheers, Rich