Zero Friction Unit Testing for Visual Studio .NET
There are a few things I need to get off my chest. When I started working on TestDriven.Net I was a hobbyist
This behaviour from Microsoft is very disappointing. There is nothing more that I can say about it.
don't give up!
I have just received another courier delivered letter from Microsoft's lawyers. That makes a total of
First, do these lawyers really read the EULA from Microsoft? Or are they to fucking greedy to even read a document that MS created which governs the use of the software? As long as you did not: "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." If Express can use add-ons, as is well evident that your add-on works, then their EULA actually COVERS your add-on, because having add-ons work is not a technical limitation of the product, and therefore you did not bypass a limitation. Stupid, fucking, greedy lawyers.
Does anywhere in the EULA expressly say, "NO add-ons are to be used or supported?" If not, then you are working within the TECHNICAL LIMITATIONS of the product. Pure and simple. The application has the TECHNICAL CAPABILITY to use add-ons, and if the EULA doesn't not expressly prohibits the use of add-ons, then you are completely within the realm of technical limitations. OLSWANG.....go hang yourself you stupid, greedy COCK
What a sadd, sadd company Microsoft is these days :( Maybey I should stop all development in .Net and get some Java books ;)
And they wonder why so many developers refuse point blank to develop using any language or system microsoft develop.
open source languages and servers all the way and never let microsoft hold you to ransom
As a linux user, I can't help but really feel for you over this.
You are a great coder, how about doing some work on GPL software? You'd be able to pretty much do ANYTHING that you want to do with the code, GPL would guarantee your freedom.
I use to work for them and I can tell you they are like a dog with a bone. They won't give up.
However if you really want to sock it to them, simply publish your code and make it available to all. When it is in the public domain what can they do then, nothing but blow hot air. Great piece of work though.
Evidently, if you originally built the software with the Express product, it does not break the EULA for Express. Keep fighting Jamie, please do. Microsoft is in the wrong, and thinks that just because they gave you MVP status originally, that you should be beholden to them.
Microsoft can go to hell. And tell them to go stick their award too. Sad bunch of ... :-)
Jason,
I think it's fair to say that the majority of the Open Source community are behind you on this one.
For a similar issue and case, check out http://showusthecode.com/ - Microsoft keep resorting to legal threats whilst remaining deliberately vague about what has been violated - this is bully-boy tactics and should not be tolerated.
Best of luck, and hang on in there,
PF.
You know, Eclipse could really use someone of your (really quite self-evident) talents! You're a great developer who clearly (as evidenced by Microsoft's fear of you) has potential, it would be a shame if you got scared out of development because of this, so please please keep coding!
This kind of thing is the exact reason I stopped using their products. They did not like the appearance of something (we were using Apache as our public web server) and so they got all lawyered up and started the threats and software audits until we gave in and switched to IIS.
I read your story on http://www.theregister.co.uk/2007/06/05/microsoft_mvp_threats/ Don't give up!
This "beating your customers over the head with a stick" behavior is one reason why I only touch Microsoft development tools and platforms when I have to do so.
Another is the API-Of-The-Month Club (where we learn new ways to do all the old stuff, but better!).
I sincerely hope things work out for you in the end.
You shot yourself in the foot.
You might be correct in saying that you are opperating legally but you probally could have made alot of money working together with microsoft.
wish you luck anyway
I feel that Microsoft has bothed their ULA and are scrabling to correct their mistake by bulling you.
Any mistake that microsoft makes has potentially huge financial implications, so be advised that they will try to do you harm, no matter if they are wrong or not.
Check carefully that the ULA does not put you on the wrong side of the law. Then decide if you want to fight or not.
A substancial financial settlement would be a fine way to solve this issue. You get a copensation for your efforts and they save their product strategy.
Until they solve this issue with you they can not really change the ULA as they clearly should or they admit they botched the job in the first place.
I will try to keep track of this matter as it really interests me.
Good Luck to your endeavours
Good luck to you. Microsoft has a reputation of stamping on creativity, and using its lawyers whenever it feels like it. Do as Joe Mac Nicolas suggests, and post your code - or at least the bits that Microsoft is whinging about. Then they can whinge all they like.
Jim
I feel really sorry for you. I hope you'll be able to sort this out, out of the courtroom.
<rant>
Sadly your story is not the first one of its kind. Actually It makes me wondering why some people are still [naive|idealist|dumb] enough (pick one) to support Microsoft's softwares so actively, willing to spend a lot of time and effort to build a community around MS's products and trying to enhance them. History has shown that you cannot expect to work with Microsoft without being bitten at the end.
</rant>
Sorry for the rant. Take care.
Noeilla
Yes, indeed; I completely re-iterate the excellent point raised by 'Linux User'. You're clearly talented, so why are you using your talents to further the evil empire of Microsoft? A company who is, quite literally, ready to issue legal proceedings against you for <insert wild and mis-guided rantings about breaching Microsoft's EULA>.
I strongly urge you to give up the .NET platform, and write for a platform protected by the GNU GPL. Why *anyone* bothers with Microsoft is truly beyond me. They are a truly truly evil company, in every sense of the word.
Well, here goes any chance of me ever getting MVP status: I think Microsoft, in the form of one Jason
Just read about this on The Register.
Microsoft are doing themselves no favours here...
I'm sorry, but from what I can read from Olswang's letter, you really did infringe the license. Where Jason only mouths generalities abouthte license, Olswang points out precisely where he believes the infringement occurs.
How?
Go to the bit where Olswang quotes the license saying "You may not work around any technical limitations", followed by "Your product enables users [...] functionality that has been deactivated in Express [...] thereby circumventing the measures put in place [...]"
Sorry, but as I understand it from Olswang's letter, your software removes a limitation that Microsoft put into the limited edition and allows anyone who downloads it to do the same.
Now unfortunately that's against the licensing conditions.
What's more, Microsoft's stance makes good business sense. Microsoft does not want the free edition to have too much functionality ... that's to be reserved for paying versions, or the value of their paying versions is undermined. So they have a tangible interest which you are compromising, and their ELUA is designed to protect this. Things like that weigh heavily in court.
As far as I can see, Microsoft have no problem with you distributing your software as long as it only works in conjunction with a *paying* version of their software.
In a nutshell: I'm afraid they have got you by the short and curlies. Of course I'm no lawyer just a layman with an interest in Law, and one who tends to read things carefully.
But please realise what it will mean for you to have to defend against any legal proceedings from Microsoft. From what I can see, it just isn't clear-cut that Microsoft's position is total nonsense. Would you like to contest their reading of their own EULA in court? What is that worth to you?
Can you perhaps let your lawyer friend read Olswang's letter, because his letter makes much more sense than Jason's burblings? I bet he'll come to the same conclusion as I do.
And another thing. For what it's worth, lawyer's letters are usually *much* shorter and sharper than Olswang's. As far as I can see, Olswang really went out of his way to explain things to you and to be persuasive.
And remember that those brave posters writing "F**K you Microsoft" in their comments won't have their name on the summons ... or on the legal bills.
If you'll pardon my tactless remarks ... this is precisely one of the reasons why Open Source is so attractive.
I think that Microsoft needs to realize that allowing people to add on to their products freely would make people more fond of them. For marketing's sake I hope that they totally reconsider thier position here or face losing other MVPs to Java and PHP. They have nearly an infinite supply of money, why would something so small make them whine so much? It is silly, they shouldn't care.
You are wasting your hugely valuable time on this nonsense. You are a talented programmer and you should not have to deal with this idiocy. Withdraw your product from the world and put your work into any product that has nothing to do with Microsoft. These guys are outrageous; when they "embrace and extend" it is supposed to be fine, but when someone does it to them, they throw flacks and now lawyers at you.
I've read a lot of press over the past year which reports how Microsoft is in a state of internal struggle - the more progressive employees will surely sympathize with you over this, and realize that the vague, ignorant and now heavy-handed treatment of Jason Weber and his mob are the biggest obstacle to Microsoft's Developer platform truly being a competitor in the next iteration.
The developer community is firmly behind you.
Don't give up!
I just spent the last 30mins reading through all this and I have only one thing to say:
You shot yourself in the foot there mate (like the guy above said too)
Sorry to say it, but I wish you all the best...
Pingback from Counterjumper » Blog Archive » Microsoft vs. Jamie Cansdale
@Golodh
I believe Jamie said he only used MSDN documented APIs to implement his "hack" as Microsoft calls it. If this is true, then he is NOT "working around" any "technical limitations" of the Express Edition.
It doesn't matter whether you violated the EULA. EULA's aren't legal, and only remain because no one has bothered to really legally challenge them and set precedent. A EULA is certified and granted legal status only if you actually agreed to the agreement. What if you daughter, son, mother, father, grandfather, or anyone else installed the software and clicked that "I agree" button? You can not be held liable to any agreement you do not expressly agree to. And it would be nearly impossible to prove you did agree to it (or any other EULA for that matter).
Intellectual property rights don't make sense in software anyways. Once you give or sell your product, it can and oftentimes is subjected to be changed by the user. Redistribution however, is subject to intellectual property rights. But since the code used in this matter seems to be entirely the property of the designer being threatened, he has not violated any intellectual property rights.
If a man gives or sells you a stool, you have the right to add on a back and arm rests, or to chop it up into little pieces. It was theirs, and now is yours either by purchase or present. They no longer have any claim to the item distributed.
You have talent, but you also have balls. If and when you get sick of all the BS that MS is shoveling your way there is literally hundreds of places in the Open Source Community where your contributions would be more than welcomed and you can say goodbye to the drama of this event. I do believe you to be right in this manner after having read everything. I do agree the only person who had anything concrete to say was the last lawyer Olswang, who seems to have the chink in the armor very well labelled down to the single point of objection. It is a argueable point that they build in the ability to use add-ins and you are only using the method they provide. Sad that by adding features to something that is free it could cost anyone anything. Microsoft is truly clueless and its actions such as this that help push open sources true benefits in ways no marketing campaign ever could. Bottom line though is this. They only want you to add features to a product they make money on, not ones that they don't. This is pure greed and why everyone see's them as evil. Sometimes its hard to disagree, this would be one of those times. Best of luck and just know they are not the only camp. Tnt
Thats why TestDriven tools are available in high numbers (and with huge quality) for Java and Other Free Languages/Platforms way before MS platforms.
Sorry mate, don't stress over hobby. Hobby was meant to be fun. They like to cease fun and get money out of it. :)
Most probably your code is being copyied and implemented by other teams so they won't need you, or your tool, anymore... (have u seen the BlueJ case?)
Best Regards,
Bruno
As a CEO I find this behavior very irritating. I was considering a Microsoft product for site wide deployment (11,000 employees). Now I am re-considering.
Right way, Wrong way, Microsoft Way. Sorry dude, but even if you know you're in the right, the 470-pound Microsoft Gorilla is going to sit on you. It's best you give in to their demands, disable the Express components, and realise that this is the world they own. I would take it as a "sign" and invest more into Linux. You won't get spanked like this.
Yet Another reason to Abandon the Windows platform and move on to Open Source...
I just spent last hour carefully reading all the letters, and I truly believe that your talent should be offered to the company that's worthy of it. I fully command you for not giving in.
It really depends on how much money you have Jamie. One the one side writing an add-on is not a strict "workaround" especially if you are only using publicly documented/provided API. However, MS with enough resources can easily persuade the jury that the license even forbids writing extensions that can provide features not found in the paid versions are in the same boat. Well all the best to you at any rate. At worst case, just post the code out in the public domain! Cheers and Good luck again Sri
MS has much deeper pocket than you do. A legal battle will bring you no good, even if you are proven correct at the end. In my opinion, do what is necessary to avoid the legal battle, and focus your work on something that won't bite you back (read: OSS) from now on. No need to look back, at least I never did.
It takes guts to do th eright thing when you are being bullied by a corporation. Good luck, ignore the naysayers, and know that you have the respect of many. "First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win." - Mahatma Gandhi
Jamie, I believe that others may want to hear your story. If you are interested, feel free to e-mail me: editor@thenixedreport.com
Question : Is the existance of the API in the express products enough to be considered "permission given" for use of it. If they didnt want it to be possible to use it, then they should not have implemented the API in the first place. The way you have been treated by microsoft and now its lawyers is dispicable. It will only show them in an increasingly poor light as this saga drags on.
I have read your story on "the Register", and have since read the email correspondence you have posted. I am no fan of Mircosoft. However, this latest behavior towards you, and also against the Linux community, has instilled an iron will in me to resist any more M$ products. I will NEVER willingly use another M$ product, because of their bullying actions. However, this does not help you. I would recommend setting up some kind of legal fund to assure you have the assets to fight this. Do not give in. Please. The bully needs to be stood up to. I would donate to such a fund (alas, my resources are limited). Note too that I sent an email to Jason Weber, expressing my disappointment with his actions towards you, and his company's actions as a whole. Please let all of us know how else you can be helped. Sincerely, RJ Dean
This is ultra sad.. we just cannot move forward this way.. no innovation.. just one umbrella corporation telling us what to do. I am ashamed to be a .Net developer and using Microsoft products.
Dont let the bastards grind you down dude. And check out Sharp Develop + Mono Develop. Let the MS lawyers take there culty little SLAPP suit and stuff it up their ass. Good luck.
To continue the stool analogy: Imagine if the builder of the stool also included the back and arm rests but disabled their usefulness in order to give the stool away for free. If you proceeded to find a "hack" that enabled the existing bark and arm rests to be used then you would be in violation of the stool builder's EULA. However, if you built your own back and arm rests using attachment points that are described in the stool manual then you shouldn't expect a herd of lawyers banging on your door. From everything I've read here you're using publicly available attachment points. If Microsoft don't want you to do what you're doing _THEY_ should disable the functionality in their code. Not the other way around.
Remember at all times, this is a tort over a licenCe, not a property dispute in contract. Also remember this licenCe applies to the Microsoft Software. They can only apply it to your software if it is a derivative work under the copyright statute that is applicable ('derivative work' USA term, note you live in the UK). Any program you write yourself to interact with another computer program can be argued to be an original work. As such no term in a Microsoft licenCe can limit what you do with your program. They are arguing that by your method you are modifying and Distributing VB. You are not, you are writing and distributing your own code. No matter what they say, a company cannot by licenCe, control your non-derivative / non-adaptation works. And licence and license have vastly different meanings in UK. Microsoft may want to re-think its letters. (licenCe as a NOUN, I have a drivers licenCe, licenSe is a verb, I have licenSed this product). A UK court may find this error enough in itself to throw the case out. (the document refers to itself as a intransitive object) Don't even get me started on a licenCe that has no cost.(we let you download this for free, asking you agree to these terms in return, terms which you (generally) cannot see until you download the software) And since they claim you are a tortfeasant (wrong doer in tort, the area of law that covers licenCes) ask your lawyer what you could be up for. (AFAIK it is -lost profits, very hard to prove, -Your profit, none And -Damages, only awarded in flagrant and repeated breaches.)
Does Jason Weber work for SCO? It's obvious that Jason Weber made a quick unsupported threat to you going against the EULA, in his intial email. You made MANY requests for information supporting his assertions, and HE FAILED to ever do so. Why? Because there are NO violations, yet Jason Weber can't own up to his initial flub. And the lawyer further supports this, by referencing something so ambiguous and reaching as to have zero value. And on top of it Jason Weber puts the kibosh on Jamie's MVP status. Jason Weber should do the right thing.
愚蠢的做法:weblogs.asp.net/.../microsoft-lawyers-chapter-3.aspx
明智的改变:http://www.t...
This is all aggravatingly vague. Can someone give some actual details here? Is this plugin somehow calling standard functions to re-enable disabled functionality in the express edition? What functions? How? If this was for real, someone should be able to say either "calling method x is not covered by the license" or "calling method x is a violation of license part z."
I agree with Golodh above. Whether you have created an illegal hack or are exploiting an unintentional bug in Microsoft's product, the fact remains that you have deliberately circumvented the intended limitations in the product, contrary to the licensing terms for that product. It may not have been your clear intent to do so initially, perhaps your circumvention was unintentional -- but as you have been informed by MS that the circumvention is contrary to the terms, your persistance to include the circumvention nevertheless constitutes a deliberate decision on your part. @ Damien Hunter, Microsoft have not sold/given any software, they have simply sold/given a license to use the software according to certain terms and conditions.
And another thing I just thought of, the licence applies to the software only and the use of the software, it cannot limit your other rights (read tortious rights). Just like it would be silly to have as a condition on a drivers licence that you could not swim on Sundays, a software licence that limits what you can write in your own time, using your own research, even if you are using their product is a non-operative clause. You cannot modify and distribute their code (this would be a breach of copyright for starters), you can write your own code using their language constructs and online resources, to interact with their product. Whether you can then use your product with their software is another thing, but they don't claim this use in their letters. (it is the difference between; distributing your code OR installing your code to circumvent a Microsoft feature on their software.) Michael BE CompE / LLB
Just GPL your code and let Microsoft's lawyers die in pain.
Microsoft must be crazy -- for the amount of money they are expending on lawyers and the loss of user goodwill, they could simply buy the product and make it available to all users as part of the distribution. That way everyone wins!
What do you really want? 1. Make money 2. Be famous 3. Prove you were right If you want #1, work with MS not against... If you want #2 or #3, go to court. But you will lose...
support you man! keep fighting! You know who's wrong, and so stick with it!
Dude, if you're really a hobyist, why waste your time with this "microsoft visual basic .net studio (whatever)" at all? just get linux, you can do anything you want with it. I mean, we don't really use this pussy 'unit testing' shit, but there's tons of things that need to be done, and your help would be really appreciated! no lawyers involved, at all!
Okay well what I would do -hypothetically offcourse- *sell* your domain to someone else (*cough yourself*) through a registerar that protects your identity. Also, non US-UK country, so lawsuits can't go through the US and all. No name on the whois page -> it's not yours anymore, you sold it/gave it away. And preferably put the sourcecode on as many sites as possible... Microsoft is retarded on this: I never heard of your project, but as soon as I did, I downloaded your software! The more publicity they make about this, the more people that will download it... What an idiots Keep up the good work
looks like microsoft was planning to create something similar and you were just (as they said) "quick"er :) i see no infrigenment but i'm not a lawyer either. congrats for your courage.
sorry to say it but it is dumb. MS is most milkable company if you do not tease them, yet you kicking them in nuts and that MS's budha is letting you as long as he can. You might be robin hood, but trust me, your customers are not worth it. once you release paid version, you will see. 10 or 11 will pay 1USD for it and yet be discussing, others move elsewhere.
.. the best thing to do is flush it and clean your self as best you can. What Microsoft seems to be saying here is that Jamie "worked around" a "technical limitation" of a tool they allow people to use under the condition that it not be used to "work around" "technical limitations". But working around technical limitations is the basis of all development and is the raison d'être for most of the computing industry since all hardware and software comes with limitations. Unless you are developing something solely for entertainment, chances are anything you create will work around some "technical limitation". Now while there may be someone out there who Visual Studio Express solely for entertainment value, I'd imagine most developers who use it will have something more productive in mind, but unfortunately Microsoft simply won't let them use it that way and poor Jamie seems to have fallen into the Microsoft EULA trap. That may have been a dumb thing to do, but if you ask be Microsoft is doing something really dumb here with their EULA. The only people who would consider using Visual Studio Express are those without a serious business interest in Microsoft tools and those people are exactly the ones who have to fear EULA's like these.
Umm, well what did you expect supporting Micor$oft platforms? Join the long list of other people that have been micro$ofted out of existance with red tape and hordes of attack-monkeys from the Isles of Laywers. Good luck Jamie.
Another vote for an excellent programmer like you to write GNU GPL/open source code. You've *helped* microsoft, and you don't mind being treated like crap? You deserve much better.
Its apparent that you want to benefit society with your work on this. But don't fool yourself into thinking Microsoft wants to do the same, they're just interested in everyones money.
http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/
Wow.. now that's powerful stupid of Microsoft.
Yep, don't give up! Greetings from Helsinki, - Martin
Pingback from Microsoft amenaza a su Most Valuable Professional
Get sound legal advice The EFF might be a good place to start. Keep strong, the fact that you have worked with them for so long will surely count in your favour and the fact you keep trying for an amicable resolution is admirable. If it gets too much, or you are risking too much, take the easy way out. Release the product free into the web (they will never catch it then...) they wont be able to prove its you...heh heh. And then find a group of people who value your contribution and if you are lucky will pay you accordingly.
DITCH MICROSOFT! GO JAVA. GO ECLIPSE!
Once Microsoft throws so much money at this you're forced to take the compiled code down due to abhorrent legal costs, make the source code available in the wild, there'll be thousands of iterations with a week.
@Golodh It seems to me that the whole crux of this issue revolves around whether or not the EULA has been violated. While OLSWANG make the statement that the EULA has been violated in the form of activating deactivated features, I believe that Jamie upholds that he has not activated any deactivated features (or so I infer from the email correspondance), and hence the impasse. @Everyone I do not understand why Microsoft cannot be more explicit in their explanation of where and how the EULA has be breached, their lack of a detailed breakdown implies to me that they do not genuinely believe a violation has occured, and are simply using heavy handed tactics to prevent TestDriven.NET working in VS Express. I think if I were in Jamies position then I would deactivate TestDriven.NET for use in the Express SKU. This may seem the weak path but I cannot see anything to be gained from pursuing this course of action, aside of issues of pride/righteousness. Although this all makes for very interesting reading I do not necessarily think it is in Jamies interests to support VS Express. As for all the comments as to why developers use MS products, well this is clearly because they make money doing so. In my case it has taken me a long time to learn .NET to the level I am now at, which may not be notable when compared to many, but the idea of starting again using a GPL language such as Java does not fill me with glee. Just my 2 pennies worth.
As I read the "limitations" section in the EULA, there is a clear option of "applicable law" allowing further rights. You live in the EU? This clears up the issue with reverse engineering the API: For the purpose of creating compatible software, this is expressly allowed by EU law (and therefore by the EULA).
Hmmmpphh... Jamie, having taken the past 40 minutes to read through all the various emails and lawyers letters, etc you have received I genuinely feel sorry for you man! Furthermore, am not sure I want to waste the time and energy it requires to reach MVP status. I am a Terminal Services specialist in the UK and was spending a lot of my time supporting the community in various ways. Judging by the way Microsoft has approached this, taking months and months to answer simple questions, simply revoking MVP status, offering and then taking back I am no longer interested in the program. I'm pretty sure the entire community supports you and is very thankful for your contribution! Rt
I cannot judge whether or not you violated any agreements, though I am more than ready to believe you (and not MS). I hope you will prevail. Meanwhile, write a close journal of all what happens and a screenplay for a blockbuster movie is only a small additional step. Perhaps you think about which actor should play you?
Best of luck!
Lucas
Don't give up boy, you've got some nice code here. Bill's smelling $$$!
I was considering another look at VS for my next work project. Don't think I'll bother now!
I am no lawyer but after reading through all correspondence, In my opinion you are in breach of the EULA (yes as stated by another poster “You cannot be held liable to any agreement you do not expressly agree to”) However if taken to court the engagement that you have had with Microsoft may construe agreement to use their software under license, with which you have broken the terms of that license?
I see both sides of the case, but I feel that Microsoft has the stronger argument.
Good luck with this, Jamie, don't be bullied by Microsofts "we've got more money and better lawyers than you" bullshit. "You broke the license agreement because we said so" doesn't have a chance of standing up in court. It seems to me that they're pissed because you've done something that they should have thought of, and they've missed out on a chance to make it a chargable product.
Pingback from Clover Thoughts | Microsoft threatens its Most Valuable Professional
Hi. You should deactivate TestDriven.NET for use in the Express SKU, but make it trivial to re-enable this feature.
Perhaps release the re-enabling feature as an add-on, maybe under the GPL?
Thus YOU wouldn't be violating the EULA but allowing your customers to do so if they felt the need.
People who say you shot yourself in the foot are talking BS, who cares if you could make a lot of money with Microsoft, they are a bunch of megalomane sicko's.. Jamie, release the thing under GPL and let 'em stick it up 'em.. Like MO above me suggests..
Withdraw all versions of TestDriven. It's not worth it to subject yourself to Microsoft's bullying with the sole benefit of making their product better.
To release the source code might only be a short term solution as M$ will also have access to it as well as the community and could disable the product from working themselves in fairly quick time in their own software, then adapt it and release their own version and charge for it. Proving your copyright has been violated would be extremely difficult and time consuming not to mention the costs. Mo makes a very good point, however it will not lift the threat of legal action as you have still engineered the product to break EULA even though it is not activated...they will still be heavy handed. The fact there is so many comments here for and against merely proves that this area of law if gray to put it mildly. Go open source, you could earn well and put this behind you...withdrawing your product will reduce sales of M$'s products and if anyone wants to find it, I am sure there will be copies bouncing about on peer to peer for years to come. Best of luck and plan your next move carefully.
Mo,
As long as M$ is not able to proof Jamie did that on purpose, right?
Pingback from Web Design Ireland » Blog Archive » Microsoft not happy with tools add-on
I think you've taken this way farther than you should've. How would you feel if someone released a hack of your own application to enable premium features?
Any other company would've sued you long ago. Instead you have a courteous Microsoft developer doing everything in his power to settle the situation amicably.
Just look at who is giving you support. A pack of rabid linux-zealots with comments such as:
"Don't give up boy, you've got some nice code here. Bill's smelling $$$!"
I do agree with your supporters on one thing though. If you want to be able to do whatever the hell you want, quit using Microsoft's products and stick to GPL.
There's an old Spanish saying: "Cría cuervos y te comerán los ojos". "Grow ravens and they will eat your eyes".
Microsoft IS evil. They bite the hand that feeds them. For The Register...
@Golodh and JS Both of you seem to agree with microsoft's point but have only "read through the corresponence" and the lawyer's letters. Now, I have done the same and from all of those I can't see what deactivated features have been reactivated or what APIs have been reverse engineered. I am surprised that the both of you seem to just take the lawyer's word for it and fully believe that deactivated features have been reactivated. Please tell me, if the breach was so obvious and that the correspondence started a year and a half ago why hasn't anyone(Jason or the lawyer) specifically stated what features are in breach? I haven't had the opportunity to try TestDriven.net since I don't use Visual Studio [Express] (I'm mostly a Java/C programmer) but before I can do so there is no way I can know if what the lawyer says is true or not and I am surprised that you can. I am sorry if this turned into a rant or if Golodh and JS think I'm flaming them. But simply concluding that the program is in breach of the EULA simply because a person who would benefit from people believing that says so is quite dumb in my opinion(Especially since that person is a lawyer and has nothing to lose by lying)
@OS
My earlier comment applies to you as well:
>How would you feel if someone released a hack of your own application to enable premium features?
Please, oh please tell me, what premium features? have you tried it? do you even know what you're talking about?
Hmm.... my post did not appear for some reason(although a complement I posted did) weird... Reposting: @Golodh and JS Both of you seem to agree with microsoft's point but have only "read through the corresponence" and the lawyer's letters. Now, I have done the same and from all of those I can't see what deactivated features have been reactivated or what APIs have been reverse engineered. I am surprised that the both of you seem to just take the lawyer's word for it and fully believe that deactivated features have been reactivated. Please tell me, if the breach was so obvious and that the correspondence started a year and a half ago why hasn't anyone(Jason or the lawyer) specifically stated what features are in breach? I haven't had the opportunity to try TestDriven.net since I don't use Visual Studio [Express] (I'm mostly a Java/C programmer) but before I can do so there is no way I can know if what the lawyer says is true or not and I am surprised that you can. I am sorry if this turned into a rant or if Golodh and JS think I'm flaming them. But simply concluding that the program is in breach of the EULA simply because a person who would benefit from people believing that says so is quite dumb in my opinion(Especially since that person is a lawyer and has nothing to lose by lying)
How many commenters here are American.
Simple solution. Go to the High Court and say "these people are harassing me". I gather you've already asked them to explain what you've done wrong, and you've found their explanations wanting.
If the Judge agrees with you, he should sign an order which says they are not permitted to contact you in any way, shape or form, other than to provide the detailed explanation you've asked for, or having provided it to discuss it.
In the absence of such list, you can then throw any further correspondence from them into the bin, or even ask the Judge to sanction them for contempt.
Oh - and to you Americans out there - this probably WOULD work.
Cheers,
Wol
This is some of why I bailed on Microsoft YEARS ago.
Jamie's persistence has maybe not taken him further but getting the situation discussed is certainly good. With a little more information from every question put, other and future developers can easier make their own preferences.
One could also reason that Microsoft shot itself in the foot. This attitude probably leads to more people moving on to other environments. Community popularity is IMHO even more important than license money.