Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Microsoft Vs. TestDriven.NET

Posted by Zonk on from the stop-trying-to-help dept.

Erebus writes "Jamie Cansdale released a free addin to Visual Studio back in 2004 to help developers build unit tests. His only problem was, he enable his addin for all versions of VS - including the Express addition which isn't suppose to support addins. After over a year of trying to talk with Microsoft and understand how and why he was in violation of their license agreement, during which they would never explain specifically which clause in the license was being violated, they sent the lawyers after him and pulled his MVP status. To top it all off, Jamie is actually a Java developer by day — his addin was originally developed just as a hobby project. A full account is available on his blog, including all email correspondence he had with Microsoft and the now 3 letters received from Microsoft lawyers. The lead product manager for Visual Studio Express has responded to Jamie's posts."

3 of 418 comments (clear)

  1. How far can licenses go by ch-chuck · · Score: 5, Interesting

    I've often wondered how much one can get away with in licenses. Of course they cannot override any consitutional or local laws, but say a developer is rather religious. Can s/he then stipulate that the software cannot be run on Sundays? Or that the user must be wearing underwear or shoes and shirt while using $PRODUCT ?

    --
    try { do() || do_not(); } catch (JediException err) { yoda(err); }
  2. Re:But is it illegal? by kebes · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Has anyone found a nugget of legal truth in the other documents?
    According to the Microsoft legal threat, the relevant portion of the Visual Studio Express EULA is:

    ...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... You may not work around technical limitations in the software.
    Microsoft would claim, therefore, that to develop TestDriven.NET, the developer had to download Visual Studio Express, and agree to the EULA in order to install it. However the situation is probably more complex. The issue (from what I can tell) is that a single version of TestDriven.NET works with all versions of Visual Studio (Express or otherwise). So it can easily be shown that TestDriven.NET was developed using the full version of Visual Studio--which not only allows you to create add-ins but in fact encourages you to do so. So the EULA (of the full version of Visual Studio) was not broken.

    So the question is: "Is TestDriven.NET legally required to alter their product so as to enforce the terms of someone else's EULA?" Isn't it the end-user, who combines VS Express and TestDriven.NET that is in violation of the EULA?

    Or perhaps the real question is: "Are ridiculous terms in an EULA, such as 'thou shalt not make the product do things we didn't intend for it to do' actually legally enforceable?"
  3. More details by Mateo_LeFou · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Digging into the email exchange I found Jamie saying:

    1) You said that by using Intellisense I may be in breach of the
    dissasembly clause in the VS SDK license.
    2) You said that by working out how to use an API by looking at the
    public type and method names I may be in breach of the reverse
    engineering clause in the VS SDK license.
    3) You said that by adding a button to the Express SKU interface I may
    be in breach of Microsoft's copyright.

    #3 is particularly funny

    --
    My turnips listen for the soft cry of your love