Official release (1.0) of Windows API Code Pack for .NET framework | The Coffeehouse

keeron
Obsessive Geek

If you are looking for developing for Win7/Vista using C#/.NET, this is a great start. These is the first full (1.0) release of the Windows API code Pack - library that provides access to a ton of Win7, Vista features from any .NET language.

There's lots of C# and VB.NET samples.

http://code.msdn.microsoft.com/WindowsAPICodePack

The Windows SDK should also release soon ...

Maddus Mattus
Do, or do not. There is no try. - Yoda

Awesome!

Thanks for that, downloading right now Smiley

spivonious

Awesome! I'm glad they got this out before Win7 was officially released.

Question - do programs from the MSDN subscription have the same license as programs from the Technet subscription? i.e. are they evaluation-only?

blowdart
Peek-a-boo

In reply to spivonious

#Aug 7th @ 5:51 AM

Development only, except for Office when you can install it once for "Real" use

vesuvius
Das Glasperlenspiel

The problem I have is with compiling an executable. If you open up the task dialog examples for instance, you should be able to use click once to publish that demo, but I always get a missing "windows - common somethingortheother" error message, and it fails.

Initially, I thought this was an issue with your CTP releases, or it may be that I am missing something?

The .exe in the /bin is fine though

keeron
Obsessive Geek

In reply to vesuvius

#Aug 7th @ 7:11 AM

Vesuvius - I think that might be a valid issue. It seems to be complaining about the dependancy referenced in the manifest (common control dll 6.0).

It might be a good idea to have them look at this. You can report an issue at http://code.msdn.microsoft.com/WindowsAPICodePack/WorkItem/List.aspx

Bass
www.spreadfirefox.com/5years/

Can you explain the license this is under? Namely is this library compatable with copyleft licenses?

blowdart
Peek-a-boo

In reply to Bass

#Aug 7th @ 9:43 AM

It's not under a happy open source library at all.

Bass
www.spreadfirefox.com/5years/

In reply to blowdart

#Aug 7th @ 9:54 AM

Yeah it doesn't seem likely that many open source projects could legally use this library. And here I thought Microsoft was only against people writing open source for alternative platforms.

keeron,

I would rethink that license if I were you.

keeron
Obsessive Geek

The SDK has been released as well: http://blogs.msdn.com/windowssdk/archive/2009/08/07/released-windows-sdk-for-windows-7-and-net-framework-3-5-sp1.aspx

If you are using VS 2008 with this new SDK, helpful post: http://blogs.msdn.com/windowssdk/archive/2009/08/07/using-the-win-7-sdk-build-environment-with-vs-2008.aspx

W3bbo
The Master of Baiters

In reply to Bass

#Aug 7th @ 9:56 AM

I'm thinking of using classes from the library (but not the whole thing) in a GPL system of mine, but the license states:

" Distributable Code. You may modify, copy, and distribute the software, in source or compiled form, to run on a Microsoft Windows operating system.
ii. Distribution Requirements. If you distribute the software, you must
• require distributors and external end users to agree to terms that protect it at least as much as this agreement;"

and

" modify or distribute the source code of the software so that any part of it becomes subject to an Excluded License. An Excluded License is one that requires, as a condition of use, modification or distribution, that
• the code be disclosed or distributed in source code form; or
• others have the right to modify it."

...which kinda kills it. Can we have this under a BSD-type license? The classes are really not much other than a wrapper for the new Vista/Win7 APIs.

PaoloM
Hypermediocrity

In reply to W3bbo

#Aug 7th @ 4:16 PM

Why don't you license your project under BSD?

W3bbo
The Master of Baiters

In reply to PaoloM

#Aug 7th @ 4:31 PM

The same reason Linux isn't, besides that's missing the point: Microsoft clearly wants their code-pack to be widely used, yet their license stops this.

Also, my project contains code submitted by other people, I can't change that code's license since it isn't my copyright.

PaoloM
Hypermediocrity

In reply to W3bbo

#Aug 7th @ 4:38 PM

Also, my project contains code submitted by other people, I can't change that code's license since it isn't my copyright.

So, why don't *they* change to BSD/MIT?

W3bbo
The Master of Baiters

In reply to PaoloM

#Aug 7th @ 4:39 PM

Because they might have GPL-leaning ideals: that software should be free (as in freedom) whereas the BSD license takes freedoms away from that software's users if a third-party peruses the software in a closed-source product.

This then becomes freedom for the end-users, not the developers.

...that's one of the reasons mine's under GPL; the other is because there's a strong chance a third-party could come in and capitalise from my work without doing much to morally deserve it (Build 'n' Bill, where's the honour in that?)

Bass
www.spreadfirefox.com/5years/

In reply to W3bbo

#Aug 7th @ 4:38 PM

I think since no Microsoft engineer actually owns the copyright to their code, they can't decide why license to put it under. And it's probably easier to put something on your standard MSFT EULA then under the Ms-PL.

But this I think is a perfect example of something that should be Ms-PL.

Unless MSFT really doesn't want open source projects to showcase some of the cool features of Windows 7, and inadvertly build dependencies on their platform. But that's just retarded.

There is some clauses in the license that is worrying to properitary developers too.

"[you must] indemnify, defend, and hold harmless Microsoft from any claims, including attorneys’ fees, related to the distribution or use of your programs or to your modifications to the software."

So if one of my customers sue Microsoft, I have to foot the bill for the lawsuit? Screw that.

I don't think it's safe for anyone to use this library at all. It's a legal liability.

Change the license.

AndyC

In reply to Bass

#Aug 7th @ 6:05 PM

Bass said:
So if one of my customers sue Microsoft, I have to foot the bill for the lawsuit? Screw that.

Huh? Where do you get that from? That clause means your customers can't sue Microsoft for damages caused by your application, just because you happened to use the Windows API pack. It's pretty standard boilerplate legal stuff, nothing to get excited about.

As to the GPL, well that's what you get for licensing your app under the least permissive license going. Still, it is ultimately a wrapper around a bunch of Win32 calls, so you can always clean-room your own GPL'd version.