Popular @
Forum Controls
Spotlight Features
The Rich Engineering Heritage Behind Dependency Injection
Andrew McVeigh takes us on a tour of the rich heritage behind dependency injection, what it represents, and tells us why its here to stay.
NetBeans 6: Matisse Updates
NetBeans 6 delivers great updates to the Matisse GUI builder. Spend a few minutes with Roman Strobl and get an expert briefing on what's new and what has changed. (sponsored)
Introduction to Groovy Part 3
In this, the third and final installation of Andres' Introduction to Groovy series, you learn about how Groovy handles variable numbers of arguments, named parameters, currying, and more about Groovy operators. Including, some new operators.
Easier Custom Components with Swing Fuse
Swing Fuse (actually just Fuse), is a framework designed to make it easier to create your own custom desktop components. In this article, Daniel Spiewak shows you how to get started and provides sample source code you can download.
Benchmark Analysis: Guice vs Spring
Willam Louth shows how he uses JXInsight Probes to investigate probable performance issues with code bases that he is not familiar with. He also highlights possible pitfalls in creating a benchmark, as well as in the analysis of results.
The Dark side of Microsoft
At 9:22 AM on Jun 6, 2007, Eduard Manas wrote:
Fresh Jobs for Developers Post a job opportunity
This is what has happened to Jamie Cansdale and his TestDriven.NET add-on. TestDriven.NET makes easy to run unit tests from inside Visual Studio, and integrates with other popular .NET frameworks. Initially he was awarded an MVP which is given to "exceptional technical community leaders from around the world who voluntarily share their high quality, real world expertise with others" .
Microsoft however couldn?t stand the fact that this tool was driving people away from their paid Visual Studio version, and after an exchange of emails (which can be read here and here ), they have threatened with legal action on the basis of hacks, reverse engineer and illegal access to, er, public APIs.
Jamie is however staying put against Goliath and he is confident is doing no wrong. He has untill June 6 at 4pm to disable Visual Studio Express support.
Good luck to Jamie from the Java community!
TestDriven.NET: http://www.testdriven.net
Full article: http://www.theregister.com/2007/06/05/microsoft_mvp_threats/
25 replies so far (
Post your own)
Re: The Dark side of Microsoft
"Dark side" or "Business a usual side"?How is this different than anything else the company does? They would drive a train through their families to secure larger profit margins. They've shown that side of themselves over and over and over again.
On a side note... front page of Javalobby? .NET story? Doh
Re: The Dark side of Microsoft
Easy answer for him: Let him port his tool to EclipseRe: The Dark side of Microsoft
Just to hear both sides of the story, read http://blogs.msdn.com/danielfe/archive/2007/06/01/testdriven-net-and-express-technical-information.aspx (the response from the Microsoft side). The comments are also quite enlightening, coming from both sides.Re: The Dark side of Microsoft
I see the MS point, but from my reading of the Express EULA (which he may or may not have accepted) I can't see anything (apart from vague clauses whose meaning is not specific) that he has violated. They don't seem to be able to point to a specific clause, apart from the one which says something like "you may not work around technical limitations in the software..." I guess I can sort of see this matching the particular case, but it's not 100% clear to me. They should state that you cannot create extensions. I wonder if the EULA is the same for the enterprise version? I bet it is...In addition, I find it funny that they say they have been trying to close him down for 2 years (Dan's blog) but in that time they have given him an MVP award twice (and quickly revoked it the last time).
I feel sorry for the guy. He's worked out a way to add value to the express product, and gives it out for free unless you are a professional. Also, much of the tone of the pro-MS comments rebuke the guy for trying to make money off the product... Pot, kettle, black...
Andrew
Re: The Dark side of Microsoft
Andrew,Great points all around. My hair-ripping reaction to it all is that every time he asked for a clarification on where in the EULA it stated this issue, he was never given it. We all know *why* Microsoft didn't want him to do this, but instead of telling him that and maybe giving him an incentive to stop doing it (one-time payment?) they kept demanding (under a completely false guise) changes from him until finally sending it off to lawyers which ruins almost any negotiation every attempted between two parties... after all the lawyers need to drag this thing out, and get paid... by the hour.
Anyway, I digress. It's unfortunate but a true showing of the foresight and forward-thinking that simply does not exist at Microsoft. It's all about now, the bottom line, immediate reactions, etc.
Anyone that watched the development of Vista from the Longhorn days and the initial "it's done!" party can see that these manage-by-reaction policies are pervasive throughout the entire company. Yell-React, then Yell-React, Yell-React...
I wish Dan the best with this ridiculous noise.
Re: The Dark side of Microsoft
> They don't seem to be able to point to a specific clause,> apart from the one which says something like "you may
> not work around technical limitations in the
> software..." I guess I can sort of see this matching
> the particular case, but it's not 100% clear to me.
> They should state that you cannot create extensions.
Then folks would weasel around the definition of "extension" or whatever.
"technical limitation" seems like a pretty broad statement covering the limitations of the software. I suppose that if you consider hooking in to the loading of a button and use that to load your ... umm... "functionality pod" (since we don't want to call it an extension or add-in or anything, those are Different(tm)), then, I guess it's not overcoming a technical limitation.
Kind of like those "No U-Turn" signs. Whaddya mean no U-Turn? See, I can make a U-Turn all day long. That sign must be wrong.
> I feel sorry for the guy.
I don't. Not at all.
No matter how you cut it, whether he's violating the EULA via a "technical limitation", whether he "reverse engineered" the application, or whether he's simply providing others the options to CHOOSE to violate the EULA, at a minimum, without question, he's violating the spirit of what MS wanted to do with the product.
They obviously went through reasonable efforts to disable this functionality in the Express product. They clearly offer it in a seperate version, for those who may actually value an IDE with the ability develop .NET apps and want to be able to easily add in 3rd party modules.
And one might gather from the vast array of addins and plugins NOT available for the Express edition, that MS did a reasonable job of communicating its desire to limit the functionality of the Express product, either through licensing, technical limitations, or even out of band communications.
But no.
Screw the spirit and intent, let's weasel word this out and lawyer up. He seems to want to fight the "oppressor". And now lawyers are involved.
This will set no precedent, one way or the other.
If he wins, MS changes its EULA and/or makes other changes to the Express edition to prevent this from happening in the future, so that they can get back some sense of control over the marketing of their own products (which is the core issue of this entire thing).
If he loses, then he gets to pay his lawyers, plus any other judgement against him. Hopefully MS won't ask for legal fees as part of the judgement. I imagine their lawyers cost more than his.
Either way, the software world doesn't change one iota. In the end it's a waste of time for all parties.
So, nope, no sympathy at all. He can spend his pounds sterling on lawyers, and he's choosing to do so. I'd rather spend my money on more interesting things.
Re: The Dark side of Microsoft
I find this incident quite disgusting, and amusing.Disgusting because:
1) As the email exchanges show quite clearly, the author of TestDrive.Net quite politely asked for what exact clause of the EULA his product violated, and why it was in violation. He got no answer for two years.
2) When a threatening letter from MS lawyers finally came, it pointed out clause 9 of the EULA: "thou shalt not work around technical limitations". Thing is, the author simply called a public API to accomplish the functionality. If the functionality can be achieved by calling a public API, there is no technical limitation, period.
3) In fact, clause 9 of the EULA - "cannot work around technical limitations" - is an oxymoron. If someone can achieve the desired functionality, regardless of how they do it, then there is no technical limitation. If there is a true technical limitation, then it should be completely impossible to implement the desired functionality, and thus completely impossible to violate clause 9 of the EULA, and thus make clause 9 of the EULA completely irrelevant and unnecessary.
In short, there is either a technical limitation or there isn't. You can't say there is "sort of" a technical limitation, then cry foul when someone figures out that there really isn't. It's kind of like someone being "sort of a virgin" (you've either been laid or you haven't - no in-betweens). The functionality either can be achieved, or it can't, period, end of discussion.
It's amusing because:
1) Steve Ballmer says "Developers, Developers, Developers!!!" Then MS turns around and sues one of their MVP developers, for alleged violation of a silly, oxymoronic clause in the EULA, where in fact the guy simply called a public API. Priceless!
2) MS comes off as the bully, yet again. And this time, they're breaking the kneecaps of one of their own (a loyal, talented .Net developer). Priceless!
3) To drive both the .Net and Windows platforms, MS needs a healthy community and ecosystem built on those platforms. Suing one of their own MVPs is a tremendous way to scare the sh!t out of existing and would be .Net/Windows developers and and ISVs, make them worried about calling existing, public .Net/Windows APIs ("I could get sued if I call API function "X"), and effectively kill (or a least slow down) the community and ecosystem, upon which MS depends. MS, meet foot, commence shooting it. Priceless!
4) And very telling is the fact that in many of the user replies to the blogs of both sides, some existing .Net/Windows developers stated that they're leaving for Java or Linux because of this incident. Priceless!
Re: The Dark side of Microsoft
I'm with you on this. Everybody applauds FSF for making a special clause in GPLv3 that was added because Microsoft has found a legal loophole allowing the deal with Novell. Microsoft didn't break the terms of GPLv2, but they're the bad guys for breaking the spirit of GPL.This guy (allegedly technically) didn't break EULA (although he's the one that provided the correspondence, i guess Microsoft would be very quick to point the legal violation on its blog), but most certainly broke the spirit of EULA. Somehow, Microsoft is the bad guy here once again.
The end result - bad publicity for Microsoft, a lot of people suddenly aware of this guy's product (which is sold for some versions), most probably Microsoft won't go to the court (especially since the guy resides in UK), and most definitely the next EULA will have much more verbose clause regarding the limitation, alienating people along the way (anyone complaining that it takes weeks to read GPLv3? all i hear are complaints about Windows licenses and how they go on and on).
Sigh...
Re: The Dark side of Microsoft
Jeff I loved your summary of this whole situation... the oxymoron hadn't even dawned on me, but now I'm enjoying the wording of that EULA on entirely new levels.. hahRe: The Dark side of Microsoft
"I'm with you on this. Everybody applauds FSF for making a special clause in GPLv3 that was added because Microsoft has found a legal loophole allowing the deal with Novell. Microsoft didn't break the terms of GPLv2, but they're the bad guys for breaking the spirit of GPL."Yes, but the FSF did not sue anyone, did they? That incident exposed a weakness in the GPL, which MS (or anyone else) could exploit, which MS did. So instead of whining or suing, the FSF set out to strengthen the GPL.
"This guy (allegedly technically) didn't break EULA (although he's the one that provided the correspondence, i guess Microsoft would be very quick to point the legal violation on its blog), but most certainly broke the spirit of EULA. Somehow, Microsoft is the bad guy here once again."
How did he break the spirit of the EULA? He called a friggin public API, for goodness sake. If he broke the spirit of the EULA, I guess that means any calling of the .Net and Win32 APIs constitute violating the spirit of the .Net and Windows EULAs, because, well, MS wants to implement all functionality, and not allow anyone else to gain profit for producing software. I guess that means that nobody can write software that targets the .Net or Win32 plaftorms. sigh
"The end result - bad publicity for Microsoft, a lot of people suddenly aware of this guy's product (which is sold for some versions), most probably Microsoft won't go to the court (especially since the guy resides in UK), and most definitely the next EULA will have much more verbose clause regarding the limitation, alienating people along the way (anyone complaining that it takes weeks to read GPLv3? all i hear are complaints about Windows licenses and how they go on and on)."
Well boo hoo for Microsoft. If they sue someone for calling a public API, and poor old MS gets bad pub, well then they just have to sleep in the bed they made. Tough tootoos, MS.
If I were them, I'd encourage such extensions. What MS profits from the VS products is a mere pittance compared to the Windows and Office franchises. And developers using VS helps drive revenue for the Windows/Office duopoly. And VS competes with Eclipse and Netbeans, which are both totally free, totally extendable (with worry of being sued), and at least as good, if not better than, VS.
Remember Ballmer, "Developers, Developers, Developers!!"
Re: The Dark side of Microsoft
> I'm with you on this. Everybody applauds FSF for> making a special clause in GPLv3 that was added
> because Microsoft has found a legal loophole allowing
> the deal with Novell. Microsoft didn't break the
> terms of GPLv2, but they're the bad guys for breaking
> the spirit of GPL.
surely MS can't have it both ways and expect sympathy at the same time. They are clearly violating the spirit (but presumably not the letter) of the GPLv2, and doing it quite brazenly for the purposes of intimidation under the guise of patent protection for linux users (why does this sound like mafia protection money)...
now they are upset at someone who violates the spirit (but apparently not the letter) of a EULA. And notionally he's not even doing for profit as he's giving away that version for free...
No sympathy for MS from me. I've seen their weasely actions far too many times.
Andrew
Re: The Dark side of Microsoft
Kirill is quite right, IMO. Cansdale keeps asking Microsoft to pinpoint precisely where he violates the letter of their license, but the obvious point is that he is violating the intention of their license.They made Visual Studio Express free with the fair assumption that it was not going to be extensible with plugins. Jamie Cansdale knows and understands this.
Net result: Microsoft will update their license to be watertight, Cansdale's plugin will be closed out, and his relationship with a formerly valuable strategic partner will be utterly ruined.
I've been labeled a Microsoft-basher a lot of times, but this time I think Microsoft is right.
Rick
bestuff.com - the best stuff in the world
Re: The Dark side of Microsoft
"Net result: Microsoft will update their license to be watertight, Cansdale's plugin will be closed out, and his relationship with a formerly valuable strategic partner will be utterly ruined. "Apparently, TestDriven.Net is available as a limited free version, that runs with VS Express (the one MS is b!tching about).
But there are commercial versions that run with the professional, for pay, versions of VS, which has MS's full approval to write extensions for (where the GUI interface for adding plugins is available).
So, at worst, the free version of TestDriven.Net that runs with VS Express will be effectively killed. The other versions will continue.
Of course, the developer of TestDriven.Net could port the free version to SharpDevelop (assuming SharpDevelop is capable of such plugins, which I'm pretty sure it is).
Or better still, the he could put his obvious talents into writing plugins for Netbeans or Eclipse, both of which are totally free (with full features and no limitations), and where plugins or extensions have no "technical limitations", and plugins are not only welcome, but fully encouraged, and finally where the developers of these plugins have no fear of being sued by Sun or IBM.
To add to that, Netbeans and Eclipse are pretty spectacular IDEs/platforms, and are arguably at least as good as, if not better than, Visual Studio.
And oh yeah, Java is now open source, has the JCP, and has competing, multi vendor support. These Java supporting vendors have to be customer driven, because they have to compete.
You see, Sun and IBM understand the value of the community, the ecosystem, and developer mindshare. That's why they give away their awesome IDEs/platforms, Netbeans and Eclipse, for free, and encourage plugins, reuse, and redistribution. They could easily charge for these products, because they're so good. But it's much better for driving their other businesses (services, hardware sales, licenses for software further up the stack) if they give Netbeans and Eclipse away for free. Just give developers these awesome toys, and let those developers help carry your other businesses.
The funny thing is, Microsoft used to fully understand this, which is part of the reason why they were able to build their empire in the first place. But they've lost sight of that. Their cash cows, Windows and Office, have reached market saturation, and show little opportunity for growth. So to keep their shareholders happy, MS has to squeeze out whatever other revenue they can find, and that apparently includes nickel and dime-ing developers (as well as home PC users). They also have to keep up the intimidation, FUD, and extortion (patent threats against Linux, without revealing the patents, and demanding licensing agreements) strategies. But all that ends up driving the developers away.
To which I say, GREAT! We don't need Microsoft. There's plenty of great alternatives for every MS product. And we don't need their FUD spreading, bullying, law breaking, IP violating, anti-trust violating, non-innovating tactics anyway.
But really, I'd rather MS just change their ways, and concentrate on actually innovating, and putting out great products, and coddling developers (not alienate them), and put out products that actually really please people. I'd rather see MS thrive while executing these honorable tactics than see them go down using their tired, nauseating, bully tactics.
Re: The Dark side of Microsoft
The whole EULA issue is moot if he didn't use Visual Studio Express to create his product.Microsoft can say whatever it wants in the EULA for Visual Studio Express, If I use SharpDevelop (free VS alternative) to create something that works in Visual Studio Express the only recourse Microsoft would have is suing the users of the product, not me.
So Microsoft can change the EULA as much as they want - he can simply turn to something else to produce the product.
And yes, Microsoft happens to be the bad guy again for a series of reasons, but basically boils down to one : hypocrisy. When they exploit EULA holes, patents and contracts, when they use the very techniques they complain about, it's called "innovation". When some else does that to them, it's "violating the spirit of the EULA". Don't make me laugh
As for the crocodile-tear part of the argument about 'oh you see we fought hard to bring you VS for free blah blah and now you eat our bread crumbs'. Again - don't make me laugh. Microsoft has done this with many other products, including for example SQL Server. This is no coincidence - its a company-wide strategy aimed at countering the advances of open source and free Microsoft alternatives and not a result of some project lead's persuasive abilities on Microsoft's management.