"What's the best way to attract a pile of threatening lawyers' letters from Microsoft? Sell pirate copies of Windows? Write a DRM-busting program?
Londoner Jamie Cansdale has just discovered a new approach. He had the temerity to make Redmond's software better. As a hobby, Cansdale developed an add-on for Microsoft Visual Studio. TestDriven.NET allows unit test suites to be run directly from within the Microsoft IDE. Cansdale gave away this gadget on his website, and initially received the praises of Microsoft. In fact, Microsoft was so pleased with him, it gave him a Most Valuable Professionals award, which it says it gives to 'exceptional technical community leaders from around the world who voluntarily share their high quality, real world expertise with others'. However, his cherished status did not last."
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Member since:2006-11-19
Well I've followed several blogs posts about the issue. I guess the most relevant one is at:
http://blogs.msdn.com/danielfe/archive/2007/06/01/testdriven-net-an...
As far as I understand, VS Express editions remove any extension functionality from the user (but cannot remove from the Core, since it's very modular like say Eclipse). However TestDriver.Net developer somehow found a way to circumvent the limitations (that requires registry hacks and special user actions in VS Express to inject code). This is the main issue at hand. (Bypassing techinical limitation by hacks).
Nevertheless Microsoft is not happy (they only distribute Express as free as long as there are no plugins. Otherwise their $299 standard edition would be obsolote). Thus for nearly 2 years they've been warning him to remove Express support.
For a long time he compiled, and now for no apparent reason he decided to support Express editions again.
It's roughly like this...
Member since:2005-07-18
Member since:2005-11-10
Member since:2005-10-02
That blogpost is the lamest ever written. Claims about TestDriven.Net being illegal. Puhlease, it is at best a contract violation which isn't illegal in any sense.
Dan Fernandez is a developer and not a lawyer and he writes so several times when met with critical posts pointing out weaknesses in Microsoft's attack.
Add to that that US law cannot be applied to UK and add to that that MS claims Jamie Cansdale has replaced functionality that has been removed. You cannot replace something which isn't there. He is using available technology to clone functionality available in other products. Perfectly legal I might add.
However, it may break the EULA but again. He doesn't. According to the EULA it only limiits rights he hasn't got according to law.
But again. He has the right according to law, and it overrules the EULA.
End Result: Microsoft is wrong, and Jamie Cansdale is right.
Member since:2006-05-14
For a long time he compiled, and now for no apparent reason he decided to support Express editions again.
Clearly you didn't follow the issue close enough. He supported the Expression edition again because MS wasn't clear and/or didn't state which part of the EULA he violated.
Member since:
2005-07-18
Not having the information in front of me, where does it say not being able to test is an intentional limitation? If anything that enhances VE is then considered overcoming a technical limitation, then people will need to stop enhancing it.
Without a clear definition of the technical limitations, that clause in EULA is simply a legal tar baby.
Edited 2007-06-07 17:24