Developers cooling on Windows desktop, study finds

[gxsaurav]

Mediator, stop bending the EULA the way u want.

There are various editions of .net 2005 available.

Express edition is free, you can use it to study or make your own applications. You cannot sale these applications. You can either provide the source code for free or the compiled application for free but you cannot sale the applications u made using Free Express edition.

You cannot make hacks for the express edition to extend its capability. Yes there are limitations for developers, but deal with it cos u r getting it for free. If u don't like it, well buy it. Express edition is not meant for production, due to which pro developers don't use it. Students usually won't miss the Macro parts unless they are pro level at which they can get the full version. I hope you know what Macros do.

Using the Full edition, you can make any application u want. Now once you have made the application, you can give the source code & app for free, or sale the app for some price. There are no limitations in this IDE.

Under both circumstances you can modify the sample program source code that MS gives, however you cannot redistribute this modified sample code in the form of Source code cos the original source code is not meant to be distributed. You did not make it, you just modified it. You can however, compile the modified source code & distribute it as u like.

1. Laughable! May be coding under 'technical limitations' is the thing u have done from the start that u r so ignorant of what coding with full freedom means!

Yup, technical limitations in Free Edition, not the Pro edition. Well, like I said, deal with it cos u r getting it for free. If this doesn't suits you there are so many other IDEs available. Make something in that & then work for 4 months to optimise it for Windows.

2. Different price! And may be different set of restrictions again! It seems there is no such product covered under MS-EULA where there is no such 'restrictions'!

Actually, you just don't want to read or know the truth. MS is not open source. It protects the innovation & intellectuals property of the developers who want to sale there apps. The IDE works according to what you pay. MS isn't stopping you from developing your own App & giving away the source code for free. They are only stopping u from giving away the MS sample code in source code form for free. You can however distribute the compiled binary.

a. General. One user may install and use copies of the software to design, develop, test and demonstrate your programs. Testing does not include staging on a server in a production environment, such as loading content prior to production use.

Do students have production environment? Oh wait....pro level developers have production enviroment but then again, they are pro level so that can buy the full edition. Hmm...nope, still not simple enough for u

• distribute Distributable Code, other than code listed in OTHER-DIST.TXT files, to run on a platform other than the Windows platform; shock: )

Yup, you cannot distribute the MS Sample code for any other platform other then Windows cos it is made for Windows.

Oh...no, wait. You don't want to understand anything what the others tell you. You & Eddie, you both don't get how things work in Windows World....so according to you Windows & MS sux.....gr8 logic.

 

[mediator]

Mediator, stop bending the EULA the way u want.

Do some counselling with ur feloo musketeers now!

Express edition is free, you can use it to study or make your own applications. You cannot sale these applications. You can either provide the source code for free or the compiled application for free but you cannot sale the applications u made using Free Express edition.

Irrelevant, since we r talking about professional one now!

Using the Full edition, you can make any application u want. Now once you have made the application, you can give the source code & app for free, or sale the app for some price. There are no limitations in this IDE.

U r not even a programmer so please stay out, coz u've been jestful from the start!! Free? Hilarious!

Maybe you should try reading the Visual Studio EULA. It is not allowed to sale the extension he made. If he would have given it for free, then all this would have never happened.

Yups , the point is that you Cannot make plugins for VS Express and if you do(which is against MS EULA) then MS will have to take action .

U got pwned by ur feloo musketeer himself! No need for me to tell further! If u Still feel the need for enlightenment then do quote the alphabet and tell what u understood!

Yup, technical limitations in Free Edition, not the Pro edition. Well, like I said, deal with it cos u r getting it for free. If this doesn't suits you there are so many other IDEs available. Make something in that & then work for 4 months to optimise it for Windows.

U really shud research with ur partner in the same room before making me laugh! Ur speaking of "Technical limitations", I hope the EULA he showed me was for professional edition.

This is the Standard Microsoft Visual Studio 2005 Professional Edition EULA

From where he has been entertaining me!

Actually, you just don't want to read or know the truth. MS is not open source. It protects the innovation & intellectuals property of the developers who want to sale there apps. The IDE works according to what you pay. MS isn't stopping you from developing your own App & giving away the source code for free. They are only stopping u from giving away the MS sample code in source code form for free. You can however distribute the compiled binary.

Its quite hilarious that in all of ur posts u finally start whining about the reasons! Does the programmer care why he isn't being able to develop/test his product freely using MS-development tools? Like I said Ms-EULA is all about monopoly and business profits!

Do students have production environment? Oh wait....pro level developers have production enviroment but then again, they are pro level so that can buy the full edition. Hmm...nope, still not simple enough for u

Oh wait, we are NOT discussing about free edition cutie pie but the professional one! May be u need to read the 'AA' again!! Link for ur convenience!

Yup, you cannot distribute the MS Sample code for any other platform other then Windows cos it is made for Windows.

Ah, one statement correct in this post of urs! Now whine about the "becoz"/reason pointing to the MS agreements and EULA!

Oh...no, wait. You don't want to understand anything what the others tell you. You & Eddie, you both don't get how things work in Windows World....so according to you Windows & MS sux.....gr8 logic.

U 2 have already been mocked by Eddie, but still u 2 keep lining up like participants of great Indian laughter challenge! How funny, do u even understand what's the title of the topic and the meaning of the source of this thread?

U 2 don't like to read anything, forget about understanding then! After every post of u 2, its getting more entertaining.......please continue!

 

[gxsaurav]

@ actually, you just have nothing to say. You just seem to like bashing MS.

U got pwned by ur feloo musketeer himself! No need for me to tell further! If u Still feel the need for enlightenment then do quote the alphabet and tell what u understood!

We were both right. It is not allowed to sale an addon made with VS Express neither it is allowed to make a hack for VS Express edition. You just don't want to understand.

Its quite hilarious that in all of ur posts u finally start whining about the reasons! Does the programmer care why he isn't being able to develop/test his product freely using MS-development tools? Like I said Ms-EULA is all about monopoly and business profits!

Well, Like I said, if you are developing in Express edition, you have to comply with the EULA cos you are getting the IDE for free. If you don't to comply by the rules then buy it. Simple language.

Oh wait, we are NOT discussing about free edition cutie pie but the professional one! May be u need to read the 'AA' again!! Link for ur convenience!

What is the meaning of the word "Testing" mediator . You expect MS to let u test a software made in VS Pro edition as "Beta" in production enviroment to make money? Wow....hey guess what GMail was in Beta for more then 2 years

 

[sakumar79]

@mediator, just like you cannot code in GPL using someone else's code and take credit for it (it goes against the licence agreement), in VS EULA, you cannot write a program that allows full version functionality in the VS Express Edition. If you cannot respect the working space of MS and its EULA, dont use it. The EULA is restrictive to protect MS just as the GPL is restrictive (though not to the same extent because GPL is for open source) to protect the author. The restrictions imposed by the EULA are trivial for most of the programmers. It is only when programmers start to mess around with tinkering with the program functionality itself that they should be careful... Like I mentioned earlier, if you try to provide full features to a limited free edition, you are doing something similar to providing a crack to a shareware demo...

@gx, one correction in your posts - EULA of VS Express Edition allows you to sell your product. But the IDE itself has some features like macros, etc cut off...

Arun

 

[rocket357]

I think the big arguement here is about the intent of the license, not how the companies/organizations go about enforcing them...

On one hand you have Microsoft, who has *typically* restricted rights and enforced anti-reverse engineering laws and the like. On the other hand you have the Free Software Foundation, which has *typically* fought against such restrictions by enforcing restrictions in the opposite direction.

Microsoft has released an API (typical of Microsoft, as they give functionality without releasing source code) that allows developers to create extensions to VS2005. This is good news. This means developers have a chance to create new functionality without having to re-invent the wheel. EULA or not, this is good.

The free software foundation has encouraged developers to release the source code for their products and has upheld "credit where credit is due" mentality. This also is good news.

Point I'm getting at is that Microsoft has intent, and the FSF has intent. Both provide a variety of choice in operating systems (arguably moreso on the FSF side, but that's debatable), and both sets of operating systems are simply an end to a means. Both allow you to accomplish work on your PC without having to bother with low level hardware crap constantly. Same with the IDEs that run on either platform. They're simply an end to a means.

Good news is that you have choice...you can go with the relative chaos that personifies the Open Source movement, or you can go with a more stringent ordering that personifies Microsoft. No one is forcing you to choose one way or the other, but by all means read and understand the licensing that you are entering in agreement with when you utilize either side. Was M$ wrong to attack an MVP that broke that agreement? Certainly not. Was the FSF wrong to attack a hardware distributor who illegally utilized code that was licensed under the GPL without giving credit or releasing their modifications? Certainly not.

This issue deals more with law than with "right and wrong" intent.

 

[sakumar79]

^^^ Well put, rocket357

Arun

 

[mediator]

@ actually, you just have nothing to say. You just seem to like bashing MS.

I'm not bashing ur religion, just showing th EULA to u, which it seems is too big for u to read that u can't quote the alphabet and tell me what u understood!

We were both right. It is not allowed to sale an addon made with VS Express neither it is allowed to make a hack for VS Express edition. You just don't want to understand.

At that point only Zeeshan was right! Giving the extension for free or not free is against EULA of free edition! May be u wud like to read that EULA again!!

Well, Like I said, if you are developing in Express edition, you have to comply with the EULA cos you are getting the IDE for free. If you don't to comply by the rules then buy it. Simple language

Laughable indeed! Why r u whining abt the express edition when the programmers here r discussing abt the professional one? Can't u understand what is going on here? And then u say, 'The MVp cud have given it for free'. Do some thorough reading of EULA now. Make it a part of ur course, one para daily in the morning and understand it before making me laugh!

What is the meaning of the word "Testing" mediator . You expect MS to let u test a software made in VS Pro edition as "Beta" in production enviroment to make money? Wow....hey guess what GMail was in Beta for more then 2 years

Read the software engineering books and understand what it means. reading all the time from american children dictionary will only yield results at ur level! Grow up!!

BTW, I requested u to quote the formatted EULA i.e the aplhabet. Its so demoralising that ur quoting not even 20% of it! And yea, next time remember we were disucssing about the pro one not the express edition.

Really, 'MVP cud have given it for free'. You r too much man!

 

[Zeeshan Quireshi]

May be coding under 'technical limitations' is the thing u have done from the start that u r so ignorant of what coding with full freedom means

mate , Technical Limitations here refers to the "limitations put into Visual Studio by Microsoft" like for example deactivating some advanced features in Standard Edition that are only available in Team System version .

The EULA prevents you to work around these technical limitatinos and use the disabled features , it does not put any "technical limitations" on your code .

 

[mediator]

The EULA is restrictive to protect MS just as the GPL is restrictive (though not to the same extent because GPL is for open source) to protect the author. The restrictions imposed by the EULA are trivial for most of the programmers.

Bingo!

mate , Technical Limitations here refers to the "limitations put into Visual Studio by Microsoft" like for example deactivating some advanced features in Standard Edition that are only available in Team System version .

Why r u reverting back to the standard edition when we were talking of professional now? In that too u have "technical limitations", exceptions, use of 'unmodified content', restrictions, unablility to add additional functionality etc!

Its funny that the musketeers have started talking about the express edition when the debate has reached to the professional one!

The EULA prevents you to work around these technical limitatinos and use the disabled features , it does not put any "technical limitations" on your code

Why r u shying to quote the alphabet and explain what u understood by it? May be u'll understand better urself about the 'technical limitations' when u do ur homework!


And please talk bt the professional one! So dissapointing!!

 

[gxsaurav]

Why r u reverting back to the standard edition when we were talking of professional now? In that too u have "technical limitations", exceptions, use of 'unmodified content', restrictions, unablility to add additional functionality etc!

Show us some link or proof that Professional Edition imposes limitations on u for extending its capability using Add ons. There is no such limitation in Professional edition.

Wow, you must be a free man to read the whole EULA

 

[mediator]

^^ U really never cease to amuse me!

Maybe you should try reading the Visual Studio EULA. It is not allowed to sale the extension he made. If he would have given it for free, then all this would have never happened.

Guess ur request to read EULA has entertained me a lot!

Show us some link or proof that Professional Edition imposes limitations on u for extending its capability using Add ons. There is no such limitation in Professional edition.

Doesn't the grp of musketeers share information? Its beneficial u know!
U r asking for links? Laughable! Read the post of ur fellow musketeer! After where it says....

This is the Standard Microsoft Visual Studio 2005 Professional Edition EULA

Wow, you must be a free man to read the whole EULA

Yea, Thanx to u! Now its ur turn to read it slowly and carefully!

.....which has been formatted and made convenient for the musketeers here!

Asking for links, u shud tell MS to provide correct links in EULA. I hope they listen to their little MVPs!

Well, in that case it is your arrogance for not trying to read anything, in which we Windows users cannot explain anything to you.Plz don't expect us to read the GPL which you refer in your posts now.

Oh please read the GPL too now!

 

[sakumar79]

@mediator, you have highlighted "The EULA is restrictive to protect MS just as the GPL is restrictive (though not to the same extent because GPL is for open source) to protect the author."

But dont forget the next line which is equally important: "The restrictions imposed by the EULA are trivial for most of the programmers."

Bingo!

 

[mediator]

@sakumar : Please read the source of the thread and for what the debate has been going on and becoz of which I quoted what part of your post. And about the restrictions, we have had a long discussion on it. So BINGO!

 

[sakumar79]

I have read the source of the thread, and I am aware of the discussions going on... I am saying that I am aware that MS EULA is more restrictive than GPL. But for most cases, it is equal and sometimes, it is better... You ask me how it is better? If a programmer develops his software with VS, he has two choices - he can provide the source code for the software he has made, or he can keep it closed source. Now, with GPL, your program code must be open source. The choice is not available. I will not enter into a debate of whether open source is better or closed source is better... Both have their strong points and their weak points and it should be left to the developper to decide which way he wants to go... In such a situation, having the choice is good...

When the developer wants to add functionality to an existing program, he has to take into account the restrictions inflicted by the licence, be it the EULA or the GPL... Just like it would be against the GPL for a programmer to take a Media Player Open Source code and add DRM functionality to it, it is against MS Visual Studio EULA that you add Extension functionality to Express Edition. Is this hard to understand?

Some comments on your comments AA to PP...

AA. Not sure why that is present - it is not even present in VB Express Edition EULA... So, no comments here.

BB. May be if every Tom, Dick and Harry did not sue MS for the vaguest things, they wouldnt have to give complex EULAs... As it is, MS is a business corporation in the US, and if they did not cover their asses to the best of their knowledge, they will get sued... Its a case of Damned if they do, Damned if they dont.

CC. I am not 100% sure, but I think they are talking about programs you create where you modify the available samples.

DD. You may not provide additional functionality to a software especially if the license says that such functionality has been avoided to provide a version that is available cheaper. In other cases, you may want to contact MS for clearance before distributing it.

EE. So, one bad thing happens, and you discredit MS Net based services entirely?

FF. The point that in some cases, they may not notify you is bad practice... They should change that...

GG. to II. Whats your point?

JJ. Only if you are bencharking their software... Since I dont know details of benchmarking, etc, I will not try to defend or denounce this clause.

KK. No, just being thorough

LL. Yeah, that is the way it goes for pretty much most closed source licenses. Whats your point?

MM. Again, many other software (esp games) also provide restrictions on backing up.

NN. Oh, you dont like links? Perhaps the EULA should be larger to include all those points in this file itself?

OO. Once more, many commercial software have pretty much same comments...

PP. Considering the amount of lawsuits filed in the US (not just with respect to MS), you can bet your ass MS has put a lot of legal effort into tightening any legal loopholes they have...

If you even half-understand the Visual Studio EULA, you will know where the restrictions are and where they are not. In terms of general programming for non-illegal use, you can code without worries. In the recent case of MS vs MVP, MS notified the MVP what the problem was and asked him to set it right. As I see it, their concern is a legitimate one (because when the MVP enabled it in the Express Edition, he was providing functionality that was not allowed in the free edition). It was when he did not comply to the request from MS that they took action...

Arun

 

[rocket357]

you can bet your ass MS has put a lot of legal effort into tightening any legal loopholes they have...

Indeed...as would ANY major corporation, US or not.

 

[praka123]

as with GPL "doesnot" allow to keep ur source's closed,well dude-that license itself is a part of a growing movement called Open Source.Its upto you to keep ur code secret and ask "ransom"(some call it price) for people who uses ur software .yes-EULA ideology are the same too.

 

[gxsaurav]

as with GPL "doesnot" allow to keep ur source's closed,well dude-that license itself is a part of a growing movement called Open Source.Its upto you to keep ur code secret and ask "ransom"(some call it price) for people who uses ur software .yes-EULA ideology are the same too.

Movement? is it some worldwide revolution to get out of teh clutches of evil ?

I had no idea about this restriction of GPL. Means If I make GX Video in GPL, I must make it open source? What the hell....I want to sale my Encoder while I just want to give the decoder API for free. To be very frank EULA seems to prevent my innovation of GX Video format better.


P.S - GX Video format is an imaginary thing.

 

[rocket357]

What the hell....I want to sale my Encoder while I just want to give the decoder API for free. To be very frank EULA seems to prevent my innovation of GX Video format better.

It's a trade off, honestly. With closed source you don't get as much collaboration or community-driven patches or bugfixes (To quote ESR, "Given enough eyeballs, all bugs are shallow"), but with Open source it's harder to "control" the market for your software since someone can fork your project (giving proper credit, of course), and start their own...look at Compiz and Beryl (well, they seem to have re-merged, but that's besides the point!)

 

[mediator]

@Arun : I appreciate that u atleast quoted my points! Neways....

I have read the source of the thread, and I am aware of the discussions going on... I am saying that I am aware that MS EULA is more restrictive than GPL. But for most cases, it is equal and sometimes, it is better... You ask me how it is better? If a programmer develops his software with VS, he has two choices - he can provide the source code for the software he has made, or he can keep it closed source. Now, with GPL, your program code must be open source. The choice is not available. I will not enter into a debate of whether open source is better or closed source is better... Both have their strong points and their weak points and it should be left to the developper to decide which way he wants to go... In such a situation, having the choice is good...

And why does the programmer/author makes source closed? The debate wud have headed to closed source Vs Open source, so u decided to stay out of it from the start? Why even speak it then?

The EULA is restrictive to protect MS just as the GPL is restrictive (though not to the same extent because GPL is for open source) to protect the author. The restrictions imposed by the EULA are trivial for most of the programmers.

When the developer wants to add functionality to an existing program, he has to take into account the restrictions inflicted by the licence, be it the EULA or the GPL... Just like it would be against the GPL for a programmer to take a Media Player Open Source code and add DRM functionality to it, it is against MS Visual Studio EULA that you add Extension functionality to Express Edition. Is this hard to understand?

For DRM functionality, wud the "full source" be under GPL?

Any DRM support you include will necessarily have to provide full source under GPL, which sort of defeats the purpose of DRM.

*lists.mplayerhq.hu/pipermail/mplayer-dev-eng/2005-June/035309.html

Why wud anybody steal the Media player source code in the first place and make enemies with MS? Since u feel u can talk on this subject, let me ask...wud u steal MS source code and create trouble for urself? Have u even read the GPL? Is it hard to understand? Do u even understand why a user shud have the code+documentation of what he is using? Since this wud lead to Open source Vs closed source and u not willing to debate on it then forget it! U may read previous debates on Open source and closed source!

AA. Not sure why that is present - it is not even present in VB Express Edition EULA... So, no comments here.

May be the EULA is in some testing stage or corrupt? Wat say? Are u sure EULA of professional one is to be trusted?

BB.
May be if every Tom, Dick and Harry did not sue MS for the vaguest things, they wouldnt have to give complex EULAs... As it is, MS is a business corporation in the US, and if they did not cover their asses to the best of their knowledge, they will get sued... Its a case of Damned if they do, Damned if they dont.

All a part of action-reaction. Don't blame Tom,Dick and Harry if u r not aware of MS's past!! BTW, it seems u have been brainwashed by our MS-fanboy to have started reasoning the "becoz" and then even stealing his quotes!!

CC
I am not 100% sure, but I think they are talking about programs you create where you modify the available samples.

Debate when u r sure! Save my time and understand urself first! May be then u'll understand what freedom means!!

DD
You may not provide additional functionality to a software especially if the license says that such functionality has been avoided to provide a version that is available cheaper. In other cases, you may want to contact MS for clearance before distributing it.

So much for the freedom! For the last line....u may want to read that again!

c. Additional Functionality. Microsoft may provide additional functionality for the software. Other license terms and fees may apply.

Since u have been talking about express edition in this post of urs, r u sure the person can distribute it? May be u wud like to read the MS side of story!

To respond, Visual Studio Express extensibility is limited in a number of ways. One way it is limited is that it does not permit extensibility through Macros, Add-Ins, or Packages. It attempts to reserve these limitations by technical means. Some examples of these technical limitations are that there is no Macros IDE, there is no Add-In manager, and registered Add-In’s and Packages are not loaded at startup. The only way to even extend Express is to work around these in-built technical limitations and that is prohibited by the License.

EE. So, one bad thing happens, and you discredit MS Net based services entirely?

Plenty of bad things happened and u still have such a fervent belief in MS?? Thats called fanboyism!

FF. The point that in some cases, they may not notify you is bad practice... They should change that...

I thought its a programmer who controls OS's actions and not vice versa! Yea MS shud really change that!

GG. to II. Whats your point?

Ease of use of: reading EULA, acquiring the software and then cross platform compatibilty! Cross platform is also an area required by developers extending his freedom to code, I hope u know that! Shud I care for the platform if I code in JAVA? I can develop the code and test it on my Linux machine and then take it to my department and show it to my boss on windows!

JJ. Only if you are bencharking their software... Since I dont know details of benchmarking, etc, I will not try to defend or denounce this clause.

Please dont debate further where u keep on sayin I'm not sure, I dunno the details etc! I appreciate and agree that its better instead of spreading FUDs like some people here saying 'the MVP cud have given the extensions for free'!

KK. No, just being thorough

Please quote the whole thing and then say if the programmer has the option of being completely closed and confidential!!

LL. Yeah, that is the way it goes for pretty much most closed source licenses. Whats your point?

Yeah thats the 'restricted' freedom the developer is getting under VS-EULA. Its obvious! Why even debate!!?? Please dont ask wats the point of debating!

MM. Again, many other software (esp games) also provide restrictions on backing up.

Its better if u stick to VS-EULA and developer's freedom! Its like debate is on 'Alqaeda spreading terrorism' and u telling that LeT/Jaish and veerappan also do the same!

NN. Oh, you dont like links? Perhaps the EULA should be larger to include all those points in this file itself?

Please conduct a survey to find out who and how many will like this! And how one will read an incorrect link in EULA? Do u think all r aces in searching for the approriate link or to work by intuition? Do find out how many developers even know how to install windows in a college or know about EULA! That was really silly of u!
Perhaps they can be more clear in nicely formatted way telling as to what we can do and not to point towards incorrect links and tell us mostly what we can't do!!

OO. Once more, many commercial software have pretty much same comments...

But I guess this is far more superior in making u a full fledged lawyer!

PP. Considering the amount of lawsuits filed in the US (not just with respect to MS), you can bet your ass MS has put a lot of legal effort into tightening any legal loopholes they have...

Please don't whine about lawsuits and being a fanboy all the time. We r concerned about developer's freedom and not about a company catching fire in its a**! Do u really think a developer wants to or wud think of shedding his freedom for company's profits and monopoly??

If you even half-understand the Visual Studio EULA, you will know where the restrictions are and where they are not. In terms of general programming for non-illegal use, you can code without worries.

Please don't crack jokes! U urself r whining 'I'm not sure','I dunno the details' and then u think u can judge if I'm half-literate about this??

In the recent case of MS vs MVP, MS notified the MVP what the problem was and asked him to set it right. As I see it, their concern is a legitimate one (because when the MVP enabled it in the Express Edition, he was providing functionality that was not allowed in the free edition). It was when he did not comply to the request from MS that they took action...

May be u shud really read the full story instead of quoting the MS-Side of story! I wud appreciate if u read the full story, but to make it in short here it is!

I'm quick, but not that quick. ;o) I think you must have been caught
out by the time zone. I released something earlier on that day.

Is there any chance you could let me know which specific clause in the
licence I was contravening? I'm drafting an email to my users and
wanted to give them something concrete. I know a lot of people will be
disappointed.

Since I'm not a lawyer I shouldn't comment on the license. However if
you read the Express SKU EULA you'll see verbiage around reverse
engineering, and if you read the VS SDK license (the license that covers
all native API's that you're accessing when you QueryService from your
add-in) you'll see additional terms that are relevant to your hack.
Sorry that I can't be more specific, but I'm just a developer

To be on the safe side, I asked a friend who works as a lawyer in the
UK to go through the Express licence with me. In his opinion I'm not
in breach of anything as my technique didn't require any reverse
engineering or decompilation.

Jamie, it's unfortunate to hear that you feel this way. My objective has
been to help you understand the technical, business and license
implications to your Visual Studio Express hacks. I hope that you feel
my assistance has been productive. What would you recommend as next
steps to resolving this situation?

Jamie, for the reasons we discussed at great length, we believe your
various extensions to the Visual Studio Express products necessarily
violated the relevant license terms. We don't think it's productive to
rehash those discussions. Instead, we encourage you to focus your
energies on legitimately extending the Visual Studio products, as
permitted under the Visual Studio Industry Partner (VSIP) program and
the associated terms and conditions.

This is extremely disappointing. We spent a lot of time last year
explaining to you, over a period of many months, that our Express
products are not designed or intended to be extensible. As we also
explained to you many times, our license terms for the Express
products do not permit extending them with new functionality or by
enabling access to latent Visual Studio functionality that we
purposely de-activated for our Express products. Your various
extensions, in both their former and current incarnations, necessarily
violate those license terms and infringe our rights in our products.
You are also putting your own customers in a difficult position, since
you are encouraging them to breach the license terms, too.

So @Arun, do u really think "all" the developers can understand what MS wants? If the lawyers themselves dont see any issue how will the developer understand that? The MVP just asked WHICH license terms he was contravening!

Here r the conversations that u may like to read and understand urself. Mail1 , Mail2.

The Little MVP asked all the time about specifications, license terms and in return he gets absurd answers telling him that he violated the license terms and suddenly a shock!!

Instead of being absurd and inhumane they cud have just told him what he asked!! So MS requested him something? He also requested something which was way simple!

 

[sakumar79]

In GPL, you can only make open source software, whearas with VS (and any programming language, without invoking GPL), you can program open as well as closed source. Some people prefer open source, some prefer closed source. I pointed it out because the choice is available. And many programmers want to have the choice to make their software closed source.

If you add DRM functionality, you CANNOT distribute it under GPL. If you distribute it under GPL, you will be violating GPL which bans DRM. And why are you talking about Windows Media Player? I was talking about generic open source media player.

There is no doubt that EULAs are in general much more elaborate and complicated to understand than GPL. Most people dont read it however, and it doesnt affect them usually.

No, I am not brainwashed by MS fanboys. And you should know that it is not only MS that has complicated EULAs. Most large-scale commercial software are like this. Since you are picking on MS only, I am asking why pick on one company instead of ranting about closed-source in general? It appears more like you are Linux Fanboy...

You want freedom to do something illegal? Again, you are talking from open-source mind, so there is no sense in getting you to look at it from closed-source mentality. And yeah, you can develop and market software developed in Visual Studio Express Edition. I have already mentioned it in an earlier post...

Whos talking about fervent belief in MS? It seems you label someone a MS fanboy if someone appears to question you. I just asked a question. You stated just one point and I asked you to give some more examples...

Cross-platform compatibility is an important issue. While many programmers still code for just one platform, there is a considerable amount of developpers who create the software with cross-platform compatibility in mind. But you dont need it to be GPL or open-source to work in cross-platform. For those programmers who are just coding for Windows, they are not going to worry about cross-platform compatibility. For those who want to code in cross-platform, they can look to JAVA or C++... We all know this. What is the issue you are trying to raise?

Regarding bencharking of .NET component, they are talking about benchmarking their component, not your software. So, yeah, the developer can have his program fully closed...

Wow, you are comparing terrorism with closed-source software... Nice!!!

I told you there are a few things I dont understand it the EULA and still I am confident that I can work with it... You on the other hand have half-understood the EULA and are confident no one can work with it... Guess thats difference of perception...

Whats so hard to understand that providing Professional Edition level features to Express Edition user is wrong? Perhaps how it was handled by MS was wrong, I dont know... I will go through those links and post my comments on it later since I have to go to work now...

Arun