Call off the dogs, Microsoft

http://weblogs.asp.net/nunitaddin/archive/2007/05/30/microsoft-vs-testdriven-net-express.aspx

Threatening legal action against the developer who has made unit testing available to all Visual Studio SKU's is bad, 'mkay?

Especially so when Microsoft is planning to enable unit testing in the Visual Studio Professional SKU's in the next release.

Never mind that you can eschew the Express Editions and just use MSBuild and the command-compilers provided with the Microsoft Windows SDK and still be able to use third-party unit testing software.  Like you should be able to!

Here's an idea!  Make Visual Studio's unit testing support better than the third party tools that are already out there.  Currently, it's not as good, but that's OK; you've been at it for less time than the folks who've been doing it since before the .NET 2.0 release.

Actually compete instead of letting your lawyers "compete" for you.

Shameful, Microsoft, absolutely shameful.

Did you read the entire email conversation? As I understand there are a lot of restrictions on how vs.net express editions can be extended as MSFT gives it away free and does not want to give away too much (anyway most of us get it free watching webcasts;)).

So MSFT decided to ask him to remove support for express editions and help him sell his product for the other commercial vs.net editions. They also promised that they would not make it appear as any sort of violation from the coders part, kinda close the entire thing under cover. And jamie (is he our jamie ?? ) refused the offer and MSFT decided to send their army of lawyers behind him.

Did I misunderstand anything ?

Edit: btw can anyone tell me what is this program all about
http://msdn2.microsoft.com/en-us/vstudio/aa700819.aspx

I thought we can just simply create an addin and sell it if we want So what does MSFT get by us joining this program?? Do they get a slice of the revenues??

tx

Wow, that's awefully disheartening.

Jamie Cansdale wrote:

In his opinion I'm not in breach of anything as my technique didn't require any reverse engineering or decompilation

...

The code you believe violates the Visual Studio SDK licence agreement
is present in all versions of TestDriven.NET (but is only actually
invoked when executing inside a Visual Studio 2005 Team Edition).

Jason keeps referencing these 'hacks', but I can't find any elaboration of exactly what hacks he is speaking of.

What exactly is the issue? That there are references to the VS SDK API's or that there is a button added to the express IDE? Both?

I realize that there are probably relevant points that were made on both ends via telephone correspondence that we are not privy too.

I kind of understand Microsoft's position, but I can also understand Jamie's.

I think it could help move things along if Microsoft weren't so abstract in their explanations of what exactly the specific violations were.

I have heard the terms 'hacks', 'disabled functionality in free sku's' and 'reverse engineering' all being throw around, but nothing really specific.

Again, it's just my understanding, so it's not really relevant, but it is disheartening.

The Vista EULA also specifies the clause in question:

Vista EULA wrote:

you may not work around any technical limitations in the software

This is the type of legalese that frightens the hell out of developers.

We like to believe that these statements are just lawyer speak and will never really apply to us in particular, but perhaps after the things I just read in the back and forth between MS and testDriven.net, I may not be as naive as I was an hour ago.

Extrapolate the premise of this fiasco out to XP.
And for my argument to be correctly represented, we'll have to also assume that Windows XP is a lower Sku than Win2K3 Server Enterprise. (Which I am not sure if it really is, but I think it is a rational assumption)


XP (SP2) limits the the number of half-open SYN connection to 10.
Windows Server 2003 Enterprise does not.

There is a 'patch' (Microsoft would surely classify it a 'hack') that removes the SYN limit on XP.

Would it be justified for MS to sue the original dev that made the tcp.sys 'hack' for 'working around technical limitations of the software'? How about for bypassing disabled features of a lower sku?

I am pretty much playing devils advocate here, but you get the drift.

It's hardly surprising, the guy really doesn't have a legal leg to stand on. Software companies release different versions of software with clearly defined limits so that they can charge appropriately for the different SKUs. None of them, Microsoft included, are going to be happy about someone releasing code that effectively re-enables the removed functionality, thus potentially eating a large chunk out of their potential customer base.

I'm sure this guy would be equally keen to put a stop to someone releasing a "patch" for the free version of his software to enable all the Enterprise version functionality, so why should he get to act differently?

Talk about biting the hand that feeds you....

phreaks wrote:

The Vista EULA also specifies the clause in question:

Vista EULA wrote: you may not work around any technical limitations in the software

This is the type of legalese that frightens the hell out of developers.

Can they legally impose that restriction? I thought we had the right to reverse-engineer software regardless of this "agreement".

Hmm, some quick research suggests that we (Americans at least) have the right to reverse-engineer ("The Law and Economics of Reverse Engineering", 111 Yale Law Journal 1575-1663 (May 2002).) regardless of what the EULA says.

Besides, this is totally unenfocible thanks to the Internet. HD-DVD keys, anyone?



(gleeeee)

phreaks wrote:

XP (SP2) limits the the number of half-open SYN connection to 10.
Windows Server 2003 Enterprise does not.

There is a 'patch' (Microsoft would surely classify it a 'hack') that removes the SYN limit on XP.

Would it be justified for MS to sue the original dev that made the tcp.sys 'hack' for 'working around technical limitations of the software'? How about for bypassing disabled features of a lower sku?

To be fair, that limit is there to limit the spread of viruses (allegedly). It doesn't harm any legitimate use (well, besides slightly slowing down the initiation procedure of BitTorrent-type distribution mechanisms)

Note to self: Never get on the bad side of MS_Legal. They'll kiss you on one cheek while stabbing you with an icepick on the other.

Hypothetically, of course ... (nervous laugh) I'm sure the guys & gals in MS_Legal are trying their best.

W3bbo wrote:



Besides, this is totally unenfocible thanks to the Internet. HD-DVD keys, anyone?

Oh please, this has been done to death already.

Dan wrote:

Anand hit the nail on the head with his response, but I've responded with more info here.

http://blogs.msdn.com/danielfe/archive/2007/05/31/visual-studio-express-and-testdriven-net.aspx

Dan, interesting read, but it doesn't clarify why Jason W took so long to explain to Jamie which licence he was in breach of. Maybe its a cultural thing but reading the tone of Jason's emails is pretty offensive - I am surprised Jamie managed to keep his cool. I don't want to single Jason out as the sole cause, I am sure he was instructed to do what he did.

Jamie claims that he used publically documented APIs, but at the end of the day, regardless of the legality the email trail that Jamie has on his web-site makes Microsoft look like a playground bully primarily though the tone of the emails, but also through the not so subtle threats and lack of concrete information given to Jamie.  The thread also shows Jamie getting no responses to several emails in a row.

Microsoft might well view themselves as being on the moral high-ground with respect to the legal aspects of this whole affair, but the damage being done to their public image with some developers is really not worth the costs you will be able to recoup from Jamie.  At best you can persuade Jamie to remove the express version - but I can *guarantee* that someone will re-enable it based on a valid version of the pro version of Test-Driven .net.

Let me re-iterate in case the above isn't clear - Microsoft is tilting at windmills. I can totally understand the reasoning for not dropping it at this point, but maybe Microsoft needs to reconsider allowing for 3rd party extensions to Express - after all Microsoft ships extensions (XNA and Popfly), and just because Microsoft doesn't want to sell a TDD add-in does this mean no-one else should.  It looks as if Microsoft doesn't want anyone to make any money out of VS unless Microsoft also makes money out of it.

Dan wrote:

- Fixing it in the future: We've done some thinking around this, but it's just too early to even say anything concretely.

I didn't think for a second that you wouldn't be discussing it internally I suspect there are probably people on both sides of the fence internally.

Just my tuppence contribution - I suspect Microsoft's image within the developer community is very important to Microsoft, and anything that damage that is not a good thing, especially when all of the laundry can be aired so publically. Microsoft also needs to defend itself against legal problems.

Suggested resolution - hire Jamie, he is after all an individual rather than a large corporation.   Although it might get people thinking it is an easy way to get hired and won't help in the future should it happen again.

Rossj wrote:



Just my tuppence contribution - I suspect Microsoft's image within the developer community is very important to Microsoft, and anything that damage that is not a good thing, especially when all of the laundry can be aired so publically. Microsoft also needs to defend itself against legal problems.

What I think is damaging for Microsoft's image amonst devs is that Jamie was and MVP until very recently. He's been dropped from the MVP system and is now receiving lawyers letters.
That's quite a turn-around of attitude from Microsoft within a very short time-span.  Having seen this, I no longer wonder whether it would be worth trying for MVP status.


Herbie

Dr Herbie wrote:



What I think is damaging for Microsoft's image amonst devs is that Jamie was and MVP until very recently. He's been dropped from the MVP system and is now receiving lawyers letters.
That's quite a turn-around of attitude from Microsoft within a very short time-span.  Having seen this, I no longer wonder whether it would be worth trying for MVP status.


Herbie

The glory days of "Developers,developers,developers" seem a dim and distant memory now. I can understand the legal POV but is it really really worth it?

Mike Gunderloy wrote:

I’m getting a bit worried that more Rails work has not yet appeared on my doorstep. I have a chance to tackle another .NET-related book, but frankly at this point I’d rather not take it. My disillusionment with Microsoft is worse than ever after their recent attack on Jamie Cansdale and TestDriven.NET. source.

And just to preempt the flood of "Who is Mike Gunderloy and why should I care" comments ... these are the books he has written, you may have read one.

This is not an isolated opinion.

Rossj wrote:

It looks as if Microsoft doesn't want anyone to make any money out of VS unless Microsoft also makes money out of it.

Well, Microsoft is a business after all. There has to be some sort of limit. Imagine if someone created an add-on for Express that effectively put it on par with Team Suite - would it still make sense for Microsoft to ship the free version, even though doing so was now directly harming their revenue stream?

Dan wrote:

- Technical details: Jason is our extensibility guru and while he could certainly answer in detail exactly what's going on, due to legal restrictions he may not be able to

Then he should shut up.

hmmm...

My opinion may be the unpopular one on this one but I think Microsoft is in the right. Why can’t he see that this hurts the Express product line and defeats its prepose?

I think the legality of it is irrelevant; it shouldn’t be in an express product...

Dr Herbie wrote:



What I think is damaging for Microsoft's image amonst devs is that Jamie was and MVP until very recently. He's been dropped from the MVP system and is now receiving lawyers letters.

Do you not think it would be hypocritical for Microsoft on one hand to be recommending him as a professional, whilst at the same time taking him to court for violating their license agreements?

AndyC wrote:



Rossj wrote: It looks as if Microsoft doesn't want anyone to make any money out of VS unless Microsoft also makes money out of it.

Well, Microsoft is a business after all. There has to be some sort of limit.

Agreed, they need to make money - but having a vibrant developer community is also important (I'll make another post about this because I am interested in other people's opinions about it) and has value.

AndyC wrote:

Imagine if someone created an add-on for Express that effectively put it on par with Team Suite - would it still make sense for Microsoft to ship the free version, even though doing so was now directly harming their revenue stream?

Strange example, only in that it is unlikely to be done by a single person but by a corporation, and typically corporations themselves are not deeply intertwined in the developer community.

I'm not saying Jamie comes out of this smelling of roses, I suspect there is some deliberate provocation ... it has also been claimed (can't find link) that Microsoft reverse engineered his product in order to determine exactly how the ability to run on Express had been removed - isn't that a DMCA violation? Does one potential illegal act justify another?

Link, courtesy of Mr Haacked (another fairly priominent member of the dev community who seems a little unimpressed).