Visual Studio Express and TestDriven.NET

Article
06/01/2007

* Updated with follow up post on technical information in response to the comments.

While I’m not a lawyer, my team owns Visual Studio Express and I wanted to respond to the concerns expressed by some over our recent communications with Jamie Cansdale of TestDriven.NET. TestDriven.NET is a 3rd party add-in to Visual Studio that provides testing functionality in Visual Studio. To be clear, we have no issue with the product (or Jamie for that matter), or its sale for use in professional versions of Visual Studio. However, Jamie has also made available a version of his product that extends the Visual Studio Express Editions which is a direct violation of both the EULA and “ethos” of the Express product line.

As you may remember from my previous posts, Visual Studio Express was a labor of love. It was a small miracle getting Express to be available both for free and for commercial use for customers let alone the engineering work to get it up and running, We made a business decision to not allow 3rd party extensibility in Express. The reason we’re able to offer Express for free and even let developers build commercial applications with Express is because we limit 3rd party extensibility of Express, specifically by removing support macros, add-ins, and VSIP packages. Unfortunately, in this one instance, we have one company that chose to exceed the license grant and develop additional features into the Express products that are not allowed. Additionally we have over 300 VSIP partners with over 1,000 legal Visual Studio extensions that cannot extend Express. It doesn’t make business sense when our biggest and best partners are legally unable to extend Express, yet Jamie’s company can.

As for Jamie, we’ve been asking him in multiple emails and conference calls to stop extending (just Express) since before Visual Studio 2005 even shipped. We even got the General Manager of Visual Studio to personally talk to him on the phone to plead with him to remove Express extensibility. Closely following that, Jamie took the violations to heart and removed Visual Studio Express extensibility for several months. Only recently did he decide to add Express support back to TestDriven.NET and only after another round of conversations and close to two years of trying to avoid escalating this situation, we felt compelled to deliver our message in a different form.

The Express Customer
The vast majority of our customer base, now with 14 million downloads, isn’t even professional developers, its non-professionals. In fact over 80% of Express registrants don’t describe themselves as a “developer”. From a total number perspective, beginners are the largest segment of Express customers and they still find Express too complex, it has too many features, and they see development as a means to an end (I just want to create my kids soccer league Web site). Our Express customers haven't been asked for unit testing or extensiblity in much the same way as I didn't ask or even know to ask when I grew up programming BASIC on an Apple IIe. Heck even professional developers with years of programming experience can't program FizzBuzz.

It’s unfortunate that this happened, but as you can see, we have been very patient with Jamie and it’s our hope he will remain in compliance of the Visual Studio Express Editions license agreement.

If the choice was between not ever having released Visual Studio Express (or not releasing it in the future) or having Visual Studio Express with an explicit limitation to block extensibility, which would you chose? As an advocate for the (wholly neglected) beginner customer and as an employee that understands Microsoft is a business at the end of the day, it seems like a perfectly reasonable tradeoff to make that, in the end, provides the best tools possible to an entire class of customer that may never have picked up programming without it.

Comments

Anonymous
May 31, 2007
PingBack from http://testsubdomain.netmoviehost.com/visual-studio-express-and-testdrivennet/
Anonymous
May 31, 2007
The only thing that bothers me here is that, if the Express SKUs ain't supposed to be extandable, how do XNA Game Studio Express and the Popfly thingy work? Are these possible because they are from inside MS or is it possible for external devs to get (e.g. buy) some sort of license to extend the Express SKUs for their own, special (and possible narrow) domain?
Anonymous
May 31, 2007
Is there anyway to see the license without downloading the package?
Anonymous
May 31, 2007
When teaching someone how to program, I can not imagine getting them to write code without unit tests. TestDriven.Net lets unit test be done in a painless way, without it Visual Studio Express is not very useful for someone leaning how to program. Do you wish to drive everyone that cares about unit testing to Java (with it’s free extendable tools)? I am a developer that has worked with C# for the last few years, before that I worked with MFC and I have always been positive about Microsoft; I am also a Microsoft share holder. However given the unreasonable way Microsoft has tied to use its unlimited legal budget to attach Jamie Cansdale I now understand way so many developers hate Microsoft. Is it safe for me as a developer without a large legal department to work with Microsoft technology? (It will cost a lot more then I am paid in a month just to get a legal person to explain to me what one of the Microsoft licences means.)
Anonymous
May 31, 2007
OK sure you're aiming at beginning customers who don't know what unit testing is; but here is a change to educate them, to improve their skills by introducing it and you stamp it out. (OK you can use nUnit et al externally, but Express users will probably want everything in one place) Saying Express users haven't asked is, as you say, not an excuse. How to you ask for something you don't know about, no matter how useful it is. I'm doing a few OU courses right now, including spit Java ones. And even the beginning Java course introduces unit testing. This is in BlueJay which has even less functionality than Express. I have a nagging feeling that part of the problem is that you didn't even include unit tests in standard or professional editions for some bizarre reason, so of course how could it officially be put in Express. As for branding it "illegal"; is there a statute in the US legal code that says "You must not create add-ins for Visual Studio Express editions"? No. He may well be in breach of a license agreement, so he's falling under contract law, and whilst yes, that may be "illegal", the use of the word is emotive and almost as disingenuous as the RIAA calling sharing of music "theft".
Anonymous
May 31, 2007
I guess Microsoft cannot support extentions of Express as its a FREE community tool. It makes sense for them to KNOW the installation - to make it simpler to create starter-kits etc. When MS extends the same, it has a new baseline which it supports and so makes sense. I guess we have to remember the ethos of the express SKUs - its a free tool for the community to really get their hands dirty and have fun. If we start having plug-ins for team development etc or any other things for that matter - it becomes a open tool which will need to be charged for support and help.
Anonymous
May 31, 2007
This is why open source is so much better. Nobody is going to sue you for developing a plug in for eclipse or netbeans or jedit. Ms you should be ashamed of yourself. Threatening your developers isn't going to get you anywhere.
Anonymous
May 31, 2007
Microsoft may "win" in the sense that the tool wont be in the Express editions but you will lose in all other ways in this "battle" against the community.
Anonymous
May 31, 2007
Microsoft is legally entitled to go after Jamie. But that doesn't necessarily mean that they are right. I think they are wrong. They are provoking a breakaway movement and I'm seriously considering joining this movement after hearing about this.
Anonymous
May 31, 2007
Dan, I think you're still missing the point about the whole discussion, but maybe that's different altogether. What I do wonder is.... if you've always been so worried about offending your VSIP partners (that's a new one for ms, btw), and are so affraid of reducing sales of your paid SKUs... why bother with the express editions at all? Really, if this was such a big issue, you should just not have released them at all.
Anonymous
June 01, 2007
You've been kicked (a good thing) - Trackback from DotNetKicks.com
Anonymous
June 01, 2007
The comment has been removed
Anonymous
June 01, 2007
As much as I like MS and the toolsets, it bothers me to see that you truly do not understand the common development community. Most tech people experienced or not like to work with new tools and that is what Express gives to the developers at no cost (that is a good thing), but why kick the little guy for adding more functionality to the toolset?? Most people would think this is a great form of flattery that others want take a great product and build around it. This is where the community comes in. Why do you think things like DotNetNuke are so popular?? They took what used to be a starter kit and reworked it with extensibility in mind. As the new add-ons grew, the core team took the best practices and built it into the core. MS should be glad people are using there tools and being creative. It is sad that MS has to be a bully instead of a partner.
Anonymous
June 01, 2007
@Bjorn - There is no license one can buy for extending Express, although we've done some thinking around this in the future, it's just too early to even say anything concretely @Ian/Blowdart - The real question isn't about unit testing, but rather can one company exceed the license grant while everyone else cannot. @Tomas - So if you were in our shoes, you would have never shipped Express knowing it would be free and could be used for commercial use so long as it blocked extensibility?
Anonymous
June 01, 2007
There are really two issues here regarding what Jamie did:

Extending the Express version It's clear that the Express versions aren't extensible, and I fully support MS's reasons for this. Jamie was wrong in extending the Express version, regardless of WHAT he extended it with.
Adding testing ability to Express Here I think that MS should "get with the program"! TDD is the way programming is done nowadays, at least for most people. TDD isn't just for highly skilled professional software developers - the target audience for Express versions DO need this ability too!

Anonymous
June 01, 2007
The comment has been removed
Anonymous
June 01, 2007
Why is Microsoft in the wrong for protecting it's rights? Prior to VS2005 we didn't have free versions of Visual Studio. As a result of the communities reaction on this issue, I am afraid that we may be headed back in that direction. People point to Microsoft extending its own product through extensions as if that somehow justifies someone else violating the license. People also say that Microsoft is being heavy-handed, but as I look back at the email trail that Jaime posted, I see Microsoft bending over backward to try and work out a reasonable compromise. Having worked for 4 years on an Open Source project, I can totally understand what Microsoft is facing in this case. No matter how much you give people for free, they always want more, and in some cases they are willing to violate the spirit of trust and goodwill by going beyond what the license allows and openly flouting their violation to boot. What would be the response if I took Linux, made a bunch of code changes and distributed the new binaries but refused to give out the source code? Everybody on the planet would come down on me for violating the terms of the GPL. So why are people not doing the same here?
Anonymous
June 01, 2007
@blowdart I don't see Microsoft saying that Express users can't unit test. This is about TestDriven.NET integrating with Visual Studio Express being against terms of service. As far as I am aware NUnit doesn't violate the Express terms of service.
Anonymous
June 01, 2007
Can you please cite the portion of the Express EULA that says that developing extensions for the platform are not within the agreement? I haven't read the EULA, but in all the wrangling, no one has quoted this part. It's easy to conclude it does not exist. Two things: I doubt very much that the General Manager of Visual Studio who spoke to James Cansdale "pleaded" with him, and I don't buy the argument that the user community is confused by unit testing and that discouraging the creation of the addin is the solution.
Anonymous
June 01, 2007
Maybe Microsoft can explain the exact legal position here. The license is an end user license, it applies to the user. Jamie broke the license developing this on express (but I guess would not have broke it if he developed it on VS Pro), this was a personal violation. If someone installs test driven.net on express they also break the EULA (not Jamie). What is the legal position on him redistributing test driven.net, how does the EULA apply in this situation? We need to remember that this is covered by English law, not US. The EULA clause quoted in the correspondence with the lawyers is very vague and could easily be laughed at by a judge if he was in such a mood. Another question has to be, if express shouldn't be extended why has Microsoft left the functionality in place. An expensive legal and PR incident could easily have been avioded by a few code changes. Will heads be rolling inside MS for this? I see the business case why Microsoft doesn't want it to run on express. But I also see a huge PR disaster brewing, they are seriously alienating their developer community with their handling of the whole incident. The last thing Microsoft wants to do is go to court on this incident, they could afford the lawyers but could they afford another dent in their reputation. I think Jamies has put them between a rock and a hard place in his response to the whole incident, the fact that Dan has even made this blog post validates this.
Anonymous
June 01, 2007
Users should pay for features. Features which you (Microsoft) has developed. I should pay for what I get and not for what I or the community, with my own hard efford, can develop, can achieve. Extensibility is a selling-point of a software, a point for making an application even more popular, by making it even more useful. It creates a platform which could encourage users to migrate into more professional and thus to pay to higher-end versions of the product. It turns a product into a platform which is enhansed, like in the many examples in the open source world, by other hobbyists for hobbyists. In other words, extensibility makes a product more atractive to hobbyist developers who could increase the value of the product itself by creating addins for it and at the same time makes migrating into non-free versions of that same product more realistic for such hobbyist addin developers who will be willing to get a more advanced version of the platform they have built on. Product competition is good. It drives the quality of a product higher and higher. Stop Avoiding it by constructing legal obstacles. Removing extensibility from VS Express removes a window of competition from the hobbyists and open source addin developers. It also removes the value that such extensibility developers offer. It further removes from Microsoft the burden of making the non-free versions of VS more competitive by including features that cannot be easily added to the free editions of VS by the developer community. Windows is popular because it is an open platform and Microsoft does not charge for that ability to extend it but for actual features that have cost money to be developed. Look at the research and academic community now extending Eclips. What about Vs? Don't you want the same research community to develop around it? Come on. The reason that you have removed extensibility from VS Express is not because you want it to be as simple as possible but is because you do not want it to become more powerful than the "free" version that it is now. "Be limited and always remain so". At least acknowledge it.
Anonymous
June 01, 2007
The comment has been removed
Anonymous
June 01, 2007
I think you should create a poll for people to vote if they want Vs Express extensibility. It is amaizing that you think that VS Express extensibility is not important given the success of other products with their extensibility mechanisms, like for example Firefox. Where, where, where are the rich free extentions for VS? Where is the addin repository. Why haven't you created a good VS extensibility community? Why are you so much focused on your commercial extensibility partners and only partners? Please consider adding such functionality in the future.
Anonymous
June 01, 2007
The answer is clear. Abandon Microsoft and move to better technology without all the stupid legal encumbrance. I've been MS free for 4 years and never looked back.
Anonymous
June 01, 2007
If MS doesn't want their slimmed down version of VS to support any add-ins or extensions, then they should be clever enough to code their software that way. This is another example of how MS has a weak team of developers and a strong team of lawyers. Software development is about skill and smarts, not about who has a bigger legal staff. If you can't code your basic VS software to not allow the use of plug-ins, then they should be allowed. MS appears to be making little to no effort on the actual development side to prevent this from happening. Weak developers coding weak software on a weak operating system.
Anonymous
June 01, 2007
If it's not supposed to be extendable, stop whining and just change the express codebase to prevent extensions.
Anonymous
June 01, 2007
"a version of his product that extends the Visual Studio Express Editions which is a direct violation of both the EULA" Just to put this part of the issue to the rest - can you please provide the exact part of the EULA you are referring to ? This should be a no-brainer since there is a direct violation. Thank you
Anonymous
June 01, 2007
The problem here is Microsoft thinks it has the right to impose unreasonable conditions in a license, and can thus dictate to a user what they can and can't do, effectively controlling them to impose their business model. Imagine if a car manufacturer came out with a way of limiting a car to going 20 mph, or say limiting its operating distance or something. It decides to sell that car cheap, because it performs poorly. And a user comes up with a way of improving the performance of that car, not by hacking out the limitations, but by adding their own bit that makes it perform better. Would you expect the car manufacturer to turn round and say "no, you're not allowed to do that, because when you bought this car you agreed you wouldn't drive it at over 20mph (or whatever)"? No. they'd realise they f***ed up and ended up making a poor business decision. Cut their losses and run. Microsoft thinks it can dictate user behaviour by selling something for cheap or giving it away. They do not have the right to do this, no matter what they may argue.
Anonymous
June 01, 2007
It's attitudes like this that have driven me away from Microsoft and to Open Source. I understand the reasons for not wanting a cool addition to a commercial product designed solely to trap new programmers into an ever-escalating upgrade path, however I certainly don't approve. I've spent the past 20 years building software based on various Microsoft platforms, but now recommend various Open source technologies almost exclusively. There's nothing like knowing that when something new and cool comes out, I can have it immediately, legally and for free. And if I write something cool I can do what I want with it, without someone telling me I can't do it because it cuts into their profits. Terry
Anonymous
June 01, 2007
One of the things that bothers me is the way MS has gone about this that doesn't even consider the contribution. I think the EULA should be reworked to say that any 3rd party plug-ins available for the Express edition must be given away for free and any code or binaries distributed using such methods must also be given away for free - just so MS doesn't lose out on its profiteering rampage. This isn't about licensing. This is about getting people to use the Express product, which in turn would compel them to BUY the next step up so they could make a profit by whatever program they feel might be useful. Of course, it's a business, but MS tends to take a more hard-nosed approach when it comes to licensing and such almost like there's a stick somewhere where it shouldn't be.
Anonymous
June 01, 2007
What a short-sighted, community-hostile position for Microsoft to take. Look at how community addons have symbiotically benefitted other software products, from games to web frameworks. Being hostile to community add-ons is just going to drive developers and students to other platforms which do allow community contributions.
Anonymous
June 01, 2007
What is the provision in the license forbidding what the author did?
Anonymous
June 01, 2007
The comment has been removed
Anonymous
June 01, 2007
When will you guys grow up ? Its a small life. Do you want to alienate the whole developer community ? You guys are going to lose out big time. Wait till people go back to Java and quit using .NET. All the best.
Anonymous
June 01, 2007
The way I see it is simple... you created a community edition and now seek to control that community. You want people to create and develop new ideas - but only if they stay planted firmly under your own foot. You don't even provide unit testing tools - this guy is DOING YOU A FAVOR for nothing. If you were truly supporting the community you'd be praising him and asking for a non-fee cross-licensing agreement. After all - what you're really loosing in this fracas is your own face. I'm a pro MSDN subscriber - and I'm throwing my vote at Jamie for this one.
Anonymous
June 01, 2007
Many vendors release "crippleware" versions of their product. We can regard these versions as "free samples". If a user likes the product but wants full functionality, they can then shell out some cash and buy the full-featured version. This is nothing new in the world of development tools. Borland (JBuilder, etc.) has been doing it for years. We have a third-party vendor who is circumventing that business model. He is in violation and should be sued. If you don't like it, write your code in Java or something else.
Anonymous
June 01, 2007
Buy yourself a MAC! Free yourself from hegemon! Isn't it ironic that a common refuge of the MS reactionary is a computer with possibly a more tightly controlled stack? But really, it's so much better. In the final though, we're all so much better if none of these jokers run the world. We need an open standard for office docs (hey we already have several) and then kick these squabbling resource hogs to the curb.
Anonymous
June 01, 2007
If Microsoft doesn't want people writing plugins for Express, how about disabling the ability to write plugins? You have a feature sitting right there waiting to be used, then telling people "even though it's fully functional and able to be used and toying with you and playing with you and CALLING you, don't do it."
Anonymous
June 01, 2007
The comment has been removed
Anonymous
June 01, 2007
This is an example of why I would not donate my time or effort as a developer to working on Microsoft products, let alone extending them and supporting the Microsoft developer community with free tools. Your argument that Jamie is in violation is fundamentally flawed as you've said the expression edition doesn't allow addons. This means it is the user of the addon on Express edition who is in violation, not Jamie. Instead of proving that suing is the only solution Microsoft is capable of coming up with why not discuss integrating Jamie's tool into the standard release of Express? Then it'd truly demonstrate your interest in the community's support of your product as well as remain inkeeping with your extension policy. Still let's not let logic get in the way of the opportunity to sue somebody.
Anonymous
June 01, 2007
Bad developer! BAD! We can't have testable software! Why, if the public understood that software can be unit tested and validated, they might just question why our softwa... I mean Microsoft's wonderful software behaves the way it does.
Anonymous
June 01, 2007
The comment has been removed
Anonymous
June 01, 2007
So he ignored an EULA. In fact, it's not even clear he did that, but assuming that he did, so what? Did he pay for the product? If so, then he can do what he likes as long as he doesn't breach copyright. After all, it's his software. It might help if MS could point to any legal reason this guy can't write his own software for people to use with their own software on their own computers.
Anonymous
June 01, 2007
The comment has been removed
Anonymous
June 01, 2007
Why didn't you simply remove the ability for Express to load third party add-ins?
Anonymous
June 01, 2007
Where's the common sense? Why not disable this feature in your product to prevent this extension of functionality? Not hard to reach this conclusion now is it, I'm more than happy to come along and perform some root cause analysis sessions with you, you know, in case that helps? I have zero confidence in the ubiquitous EULA, I don't think that I'm alone either. You state that you're not a lawyer (though quite enjoy bandying the words 'legal' and 'illegal' around in your requiem) but I did figure you as a smart man.
Anonymous
June 01, 2007
The comment has been removed
Anonymous
June 01, 2007
The comment has been removed
Anonymous
June 01, 2007
Nowhere I could find a clear statement what part of the license was allegedly violated. Your lawyers, and of course you, can't even specify what he actually did wrong. You put pressure on him in the past, trying to scare him. And you have the nerve talking about "ethos"? The thing is, you just don't like it, so you send the boys around. Because you can. And by doing so, you render your boss, Ballmer a liar. Remember him shouting "Developers! Developers! Developers!"? You have indeed sent a clear message to the developers community. A developer working on Windows, using .NET will be destroyed at a wimp if fallen to disgrace. "Do this, or 'else'!". Not only that Microsoft has threatened so sue Linux developers left right and center, no, now MS feels so omnipotent that they think they can get away with attacking their own developers. Apparently all dams have been broken at Microsoft. It was never the most ethical company in the world (again, how could you dare to talke about "ethos"?) but now it has sunken to a new low. Look up the term damnatio memoriae. Because this is what will happen to Microsoft when all this is over in a few decades.
Anonymous
June 01, 2007
The comment has been removed
Anonymous
June 01, 2007
"I'm sure there are many VSIP partners that believe that their product should be available in Express." And there's the rub, they are VSIP partners, they have a contract. If this guy has had his MS credentials pulled, is nothing more than a hobby coder, and has no contractual obligations to MS, what contract is he in violation of? He could write his plug-in in note pad and compile it manually. The only people who are in violation of a contract is the people who install his plug-in on VS.Net Express. I'm all for protecting the monetary investment MS has made in .Net. I strongly prefer .Net and VS over Java and Eclipse, I think for many situations it is a better tool. But VP's don't like hearing about developers getting sued for using a programing language. All I need now is for some quasi-informed middle manager to start spreading FUD about how MS is suing developers using .Net and people will push for a move to the Java platform. In closing, make the problem go away. Buy out his project, incorporate it into VS.Net, and include it on your own in the Express version. Everyone wins. You save the costs of legal fees, add direly needed functionality to your application, and shrink the arguments for using a competitor's product. Mean while us users get new functionality, legal stability, and a feeling that MS is not fighting against it's own community.
Anonymous
June 01, 2007
This seems a dangerously bad attitude, on Microsoft's part. a: What section of the liscence is TestDriven.NET violating? Just cite the paragraphs and be done with it. b: Why should Microsoft care anyway? There's no support cost for the VS Express users (you just tell them to "go away"), and there is no support BENEFIT (which is why people pay for dev tools) so its not like it costs real sales. And development tools are not about making money anyway. Me? Any hobby development I'll do on the Mac, where Apple doesn't charge for the devolpment tools. Or under *Nix. And anyone I know who's interested in hobby programming, my response is going to be "Get a Mac Mini for $600, download the development tools, and have a nice day". And look at Xilinx, a company which actually gives you REAL $$$ support when you pay for the dev tools (and really have very little hobbiest market at all). They offer free tools as well, the difference is the limit in size (you can only target the small parts), not in usage.
Anonymous
June 01, 2007
@Dan: What I meant was maybe shipping express might have been a mistake if you didn't want an ecosystem to develop around it. And more importantly, don't ship it if you were going to be in constant fear of having it cannibalize your paid-SKUs.
Anonymous
June 01, 2007
If it comes down to refusing to help people or breaking the terms of the license; he should do the right thing and continue helping people. Microsoft should embrace people using its tools, even free versions. ultimately, people should take this as a warning and move to Eclipse. Java will be GPL soon, so a great time to move awaits.
Anonymous
June 01, 2007
The comment has been removed
Anonymous
June 01, 2007
MS: "Developers: You have to pay to develop on our platform, you have to be careful not to use our APIs in any way or we'll sick lawyers on you and you have to learn our languages, which are non-standard and rather poorly designed. Customers: You'll likely have to pay for the software developed by the developers, since we're charging them copious amounts of money to produce it, the code is typically not available to you for this reason - so if the company producing it goes under, you're hosed. We're also sticking DRM into everything so you might not be able to use all content you're legally entitled to." Open Source Community: "Free development tools, free code, free software, use whatever language you want and do pretty much anything you want." You guys limit and sue or threaten to sue developers, customers, competition... when you should really be as sensitive as possible at this point. You're being carefully watched and criticized more than ever before - and you will see your market share drop as a result of this stupidity. You can't operate the way you used to - get used to it.
Anonymous
June 01, 2007
The comment has been removed
Anonymous
June 01, 2007
Jamie, If Microsoft doesn't back down, please consider porting your framework to a free software IDE. Many people don't realize the "free" in free software is about just this sort of freedom, and not about price. If you choose to take that path, other developers will be able to build upon your work, and that is the entire reason it exists, and is better for the developer.
Anonymous
June 01, 2007
It's very strange that MS considers having or not having extensibility support a major point of difference. Granted, it's important, but there's so much more that VS Pro offers over VS Express...
Anonymous
June 01, 2007
The comment has been removed
Anonymous
June 01, 2007
I've scanned the Express EULA several times and cannot find the specific section(s) that Jamie is violating. Maybe I just missed it. Can anyone post it for me. I ask because I develop extensions as well and don't want to be caught in the same position. I can understand violating the "ethos" of the product, but that is certainly not a legal position to stand on.
Anonymous
June 01, 2007
Dan, you are mistaken, Jamie has violated nothing, and the only thing Microsoft's lawyers could produce after more than a year of nothing was the very vague phrase "You may not work around any technical limitations in the software". Dan, you are just being a sock puppet, your supposed arguments for Microsoft's position have no clear foundation. And invoking "Ethos", what nonsense is that other than saying you think someone else is bad because they don't do things your way. Just like the allegations of patent violations by open software without specifying patent numbers, Micosoft's MO now seems to be "make threats without substantive proof against anything we perceive as a dangerous". Microsoft is intimidating customers and driving away business and customer goodwill with this attitude.
Anonymous
June 01, 2007
The comment has been removed
Anonymous
June 01, 2007
I think this shows what a joke anything "free" from Microsoft is -- you're free to do next to NOTHING with the product, and you aren't free to use it in any useful way. Some "free" deal.
Anonymous
June 01, 2007
Nektar: First hit is free, you pay for the others. That's why MS doesn't want Express to be extensible.
Anonymous
June 01, 2007
Dan, The problem is this. From what I've read, Jamie has repeatedly asked for the specific clause, in the specific EULA, that prohibits him from doing what he's doing. Even with the millions of dollars Microsoft spends on its attorneys, they seem to find it impossible to do so. They simply say "it's prohibited by EULA" and other Microsoft employees, such as yourself, use loaded words like "it's illegal". So, Dan, for the record: please specify, with completeness and specificity, the exact clause and the exact EULA that prohibits Jaime from doing what he's doing. When you do so, the community will see that you are right. If you can't do so, then it will continue to look like Microsoft is simply trying to perpetuate the market segmentation strategy it's using to sell Visual Studio. And, mirroring a previous post: this makes me queasy about developing on Microsoft products, as I have for the past 6 years. Because I don't have money to hire a lawyer to explain with completeness and specificity the things that Microsoft licenses prohibit me from doing, the only way to be absolutely sure that Microsoft won't sue me is to develop using Open Source products.
Anonymous
June 01, 2007
Maybe I am missing something but if isn't it your responsibility "to not allow 3rd party extensibility in Express." and not the users/creators? If, as you say, you limit the ability to use addins in the express version by "removing support macros, add-ins, and VSIP packages" then wouldn't it be impossible for this situation to occur in the first place? At the end of the day, who cares? This guy made an add-in that you didn't have to do anything to make. It is being used. It is making your software suite (both the free and the purchased versions) more well-known. And just because you say, "We are not going to offer support for..." does not mean "We are not going to let developers..." Maybe if you made your EULA a little less vague you wouldn't have these problems. Of course then you would have to tell your customers what you really think of their business.
Anonymous
June 01, 2007
The comment has been removed
Anonymous
June 01, 2007
The comment has been removed
Anonymous
June 01, 2007
I can't believe how tiresome this is getting. I hope these open source guys have nice houses with refrigerators stocked with beer, because I need a nice cold one to deal with these circular arguments stating they deserve these rights (i.e. to break the EULA) without having consequences. Microsoft is well within their rights here. If these TDD guys are so smart, maybe they should write their own IDE that they can extend at will and market on their own.
Anonymous
June 01, 2007
The comment has been removed
Anonymous
June 01, 2007
"Developers, developers, developers..." People like you obviously don't care about developers. Why don't you just give away the whole Visual Studio package, is Sun can do it, why can't you? Because all you care about is money. Thanks for nothing!
Anonymous
June 01, 2007
Why not limit the product itself from being extended. Allowing someone to extend VS Express is talking out of both sides of your mouth. If you do not want folks extending it, make it technically impossible.
Anonymous
June 01, 2007
I'm with Pete, if you don't want VS Express to be extensible, why did you make it extensible? It seems odd that you would put the technical functionality there, then require via the EULA that users don't take advantage of that functionality. Wouldn't it have been better to simply disable it in the Express version?
Anonymous
June 01, 2007
if you truly appreciate the plug in the way you claim, why not negotiate with the author for some way to get the functionality included in studio? embrace and extend? surely there's a way to solve the problem without unleashing the hounds. the feature is obviously of benefit to just the sort of people you're trying to attract to express. if it were up to me, i'd just pull the plugin entirely. if microsoft (and you) can't appreciate people adding value to your products and can't think of anything more creative than calling the lawyers, you should reap what you sow.
Anonymous
June 01, 2007
Why do people think that it makes sense for a business to release a free product with extensibility that will eventually become in direct competition with the for sale products. Seriously, where is the logic? Maybe we should all work for free as well.
Anonymous
June 01, 2007
The comment has been removed
Anonymous
June 01, 2007
I want everything that is available in Visual Studio Architect edition, all plug ins and everything else, and I don't want to pay for it. I think that pretty much describes what people are asking for here. Any developer advanced enough to require plugins should be able to pay for at least the lower levels of Visual Studio. My company pays for MSDN licenses, third party plugins, and everything else. We give away some of our produced software, and charge for others. And I get people complaining all the time that they want the software I wrote for free.
Anonymous
June 01, 2007
Here's an IDE and a language that allows you to extend it to your hearts content. It's even encouraged. http://www.eclipse.org http://www.java.org
Anonymous
June 01, 2007
The comment has been removed
Anonymous
June 01, 2007
I'm actually surprised to learn that it was hard to get VS Express approved as a no fee product - I had always assumed that it was a smart way of addressing the fact that at one point Windows and .NET were the only big platforms with no free standard development tools. Apple provide Xcode without fee, IBM Eclipse, Sun NetBeans, and there are free compilers, frameworks, IDEs etc. on Linux for a bunch of languages. Obviously, writing extensions for these is a normal, everyday thing. The idea of a dev. tool being shipped today with deliberately restricted plugin capabilities actually sounds quite odd to me. I don't know whether Jamie broke the licencing terms, but I can understand why he might think it strange to be asked not to provide extensions.
Anonymous
June 01, 2007
The whole idea of paying for Visual Studio in the first place just seems silly to me. There shouldn't be an express version because the tools should be free. Drive people to your servers and operating systems, to your .Net framework by letting them develop for them for free. I agree that it should be as open as any Java platform. I don't work with .Net anymore and work wholly in Java, but I cannot imagine not being able to work as freely as I can now. Free tools, libraries, and plugins all working together to help ME. Isn't that what it's all about in the end? And for those that are totally agreeing and hoping MS doesn't pull the plug, doesn't this seem all "I'm the parent, you're the child" like? One person violated the license and now you should all be punished? How about all you "bad" kids come over to a more open development environment.
Anonymous
June 01, 2007
He's supposedly in violation of an untested legal mechanism(EULA) under a horrendously broad and imprecise phrase. Whoever came up with that phrase at MS needs to be dragged out back and shot. Of course, he was probably a corporate lawyer, so that was true beforehand, but whatever.
Anonymous
June 01, 2007
@Aaron "If these TDD guys are so smart, maybe they should write their own IDE that they can extend at will and market on their own." The already have: Eclipse MonoDevelop SharpDevelop @A developer: Sun cares about the money too. Netbeans (and Eclipse too) bring more developers and applications to Java, which increases the size of Sun's market for software and hardware.
Anonymous
June 01, 2007
I'm gonna post here. I have been a .NET dev for almost 2 years now. I have learned a lot, and I like .NET. But you know what? I really want to get out of the Microsoft ecosystem because Microsoft the company is unethical. Here you are calling this great work "illegal" but between the lines I can read all that makes Microsoft such a **** company. I hope I can switch to something else (maybe Java), because Microsoft disgusts me. I know that Eclipse is free, but I guess you Dan, don't understand the "ethos" of that? Have fun swimming in your money man.
Anonymous
June 01, 2007
This can only backfire on Microsoft along the lines of examples like Mike Rowe's software and the Russian teacher. If VS Express shouldn't be extended then Microsoft should have taken technological steps to ensure that it can't reasonably be extended. IOW, anything that adds to the utility of VS Express is only feasible through an independent application or other platform features like hooks. I assume you can't include extra title bar decorations, for example, as an extension. By leaving VS Express able to be extended you opened the door yourselves and only have yourselves to blame. It was developers that created the Microsoft that exists today, repeatedly disenfranchising individuals in a way that inevitably leads to very public ridicule is a particularly dangerous way to behave.
Anonymous
June 01, 2007
joe:

What would be the response if I took Linux, made a bunch of code changes and distributed the new binaries but refused to give out the source code? Everybody on the planet would come down on me for violating the terms of the GPL. So why are people not doing the same here?

Well, you would be violating copyright law, by distributing code you had no right to. There is no copyright law infringment in this case. In fact, no one has pointed out any law saying i can't write code that plugs into Express. What agreement am i bound by saying i can't write code that plugs into Express? I have no agreement with MS. If he violated the Eula that comes with Express that means he isn't allowed to use Express anymore--his license has been revoked. However, that has no power over the software he wrote.

Anonymous
June 01, 2007
Dan, you guys are legally in the right for doing this. The negative community reaction could've been avoided, however. You could have simply blocked Orcas from being extensible, blocking Jamie's workaround. Keep the free editions of VS. The community backlash against MS for removing the express SKUs would be far greater than the little grumbling over the TD.NET debacle.
Anonymous
June 01, 2007
why on earth would you ship a product that you don't want extended, that technically -can- be extended, and try to enforce its non-extensibility in the eula? very poor business decision.
Anonymous
June 01, 2007
As nice as TestDriven.Net is, SharpDevelop has much better nUnit and nCover integration than it does. I regularly switch between VS.2005 pro and #D2.1 (VS has a better debugger). So for those wanting a free IDE with unit tests, one already exists.
Anonymous
June 01, 2007
@ChadAmberg "Any developer advanced enough to require plugins should be able to pay for at least the lower levels of Visual Studio." Wha?! Are you serious? How advanced a programmer you are determines what you can afford? That's ridiculous! Here's the deal: give me the product for free, and I develop stuff on your platform. More free downloads, more plug-ins, bigger community, etc. If I need help, I'll call you, and you can charge me for that. It's not so difficult.
Anonymous
June 01, 2007
Alot of the people here are just missing the point. It was made very clear that it was a business decision not to allow extensibility for the Express series of products. This decision comes as a compromise between the very release of the Express Studio for free and not having it released at all. This decision was made and the rules were made clear. And now you have a bunch of dough heads who can't focus enough to get the point talking about how a unit test plugin would be useful to beginners. Nobody is arguing that it wouldn't. All it is being said is these rules made the release of the Express products possible and these rules have to be obeyed. Case and point. If you have a different opinion, if you have complaints, if you think you could have done a better job go ahead, start your own venture and make your own rules. Until then, just stop complaining, read the post carefully, and just once and for all GET THE POINT!!!
Anonymous
June 01, 2007
The comment has been removed
Anonymous
June 01, 2007
The comment has been removed
Anonymous
June 01, 2007
How braindead and random. Microsoft is up against Eclipse, which keeps getting better everyday, and stays free. You'd think that maybe they'd be happy to see someone writing free developer tools so that they could better compete with Eclipse. I have an interview with Microsoft coming up (I'm a recent computer science graduate.) This is the kind of behavior that will probably keep me from accepting a job with them. Worse still, Microsoft keeps asserting it has the right to do this without actually specifying where that right comes from. That's called being a bully. Dan, I'm glad you're proud of your work making Visual Studio Express free, but you're in a market where low-end developer tools are free. Your accomplishment is not special.
Anonymous
June 01, 2007
The comment has been removed
Anonymous
June 01, 2007
If you want a free, do as you please, open source solution, go grab a copy of sharp develop. It's just as good as visual studio, supports .NET 2.0, it's free and you can get the code. But, I agree with Microsoft on this one. Your not supposed to extend the express versions, so he should be punished until he removes that functionality. J.
Anonymous
June 01, 2007
This is why Microsoft is steadily losing traction. Every once in a while they do something really cool and open - free products, the DLR, etc; then they do something so asinine you wonder how they are still in busines (thank you monopoly) - the open source patent "violations" (which they won't name) and this. The ONLY reason they want to exclude this is so that they can try to upsell you the professional version. Of course it is their right as the owner of the IP. But Microsoft should not acts confused when no one in the community trusts them.
Anonymous
June 01, 2007
The comment has been removed
Anonymous
June 01, 2007
I hope the European Commission takes a look at this too. To me it's the same thing as a car manufacturer telling others that they can't build and sell rims for cheap cars because they want people to buy the expensive ones. It hampers competition.
Anonymous
June 01, 2007
The comment has been removed
Anonymous
June 01, 2007
It's already been said - if MS didn't want Express extended, they should have disabled that functionality in the code. Looks to me like they have another Vista activation type of problem on their hand...
Anonymous
June 01, 2007
I often teach people how to program. Unit tests are important. A supportive community in whatever language you use is important -- this aids transition to "professional" development. I will not be recommending VS to people. Clearly Microsoft is not interested in creating a supportive community around their products, when there is no immediate profit in it for them.
Anonymous
June 01, 2007
The comment has been removed
Anonymous
June 01, 2007
The comment has been removed
Anonymous
June 01, 2007
The comment has been removed
Anonymous
June 01, 2007
How about at least an "academic" edition, free, support for plugins, but not licensed for commercial use?
Anonymous
June 01, 2007
The comment has been removed
Anonymous
June 01, 2007
Awesome post! Thanks for saying absolutely nothing except that you deliberately decided to limit ability of others to extend and better your own software. Great practice, definitely helps to nourish that developer community. If you haven't noticed yet, people are starting to run from the .NET ship. Good job as always, one stop forward, 5 steps back.
Anonymous
June 01, 2007
Link to the relevant EULA, please? Linking to the specific sections of the license being cited would be preferable, but linking to the EULA as a whole will work as well. Until you let your audience see the source of your complaint (and I don't mean the one you accuse of infringing, although he deserves to see it as well), this is nothing more than a he-said/she-said argument which is making you look as petty as a toddler whining that his brother is touching him.
Anonymous
June 01, 2007
The comment has been removed
Anonymous
June 01, 2007
Anybody that compares Visual Studio to Eclipse has seriously not used Visual Studio or the .net framework. They are not even in the same league.
Anonymous
June 01, 2007
The comment has been removed
Anonymous
June 01, 2007
Typical hubris from Microsoft. My recommendation is to simply move to a platform that provides all development tools for free. Linux, BSD, and Apple are all happy to help you build new apps for their platforms without picking your pocket.
Anonymous
June 01, 2007
The comment has been removed
Anonymous
June 01, 2007
Thanks a lot for letting us know where you stand. Obviously all the "developers developers developers" stuff was just marketing nonsense. I haven't learned Java yet, but it's hard to find a better reason to start looking into it than seeing how MS rewards its developers.
Anonymous
June 01, 2007
If you didn't want people extending express then why did you allow it in the first place ? And surely you should be working with someone who improves your product for free without hounding them. Duh. I won't be using express any time soon if thats your attitude. Not a smart business decision dude.
Anonymous
June 01, 2007
The comment has been removed
Anonymous
June 01, 2007
The comment has been removed
Anonymous
June 01, 2007
Jamie did remove the support for Express editions. All he asked was a reasonable explanation from MS to post on his site for his customers. Once a reasonable one (there was one explanation which was biased and very accusatory) was not forthcoming he brought back support for Express editions. Also there was this bit of knocking of Jamie's MVP certification ... a very cheap shot. So I guess MS is largely responsible for the situation getting to where it is now. I think even now it should be possible for MS to resolve this some grace.
Anonymous
June 01, 2007
It is worth noting that Microsoft is a publicly listed company. It has a legal requirement to protect its share holders interests. This means it should only help developers if it makes a profit at the end of the day. Companies have been sued by it share holders for compromising it profits. Sun makes Java and Netbeans free because they believe it helps them sell more hardware. IBM makes Eclipse free because it helps them sell consulting and hardware. No matter which technology you go for there is a company out there looking to make a profit. You have to decide which model works better for you. If you want integration with Microsoft products, use .NET. If you want platform independence use a non-MS language like Java.
Anonymous
June 01, 2007
Why not just pay the 70-100 bucks to but the full program?? The main reason Microsoft uses VSIP is so they can keep control over THERE program. READ THE ELUA ITS THERE IPO people!
Anonymous
June 01, 2007
"The vast majority of our customer base, now with 14 million downloads, isn’t even professional developers, its non-professionals. In fact over 80% of Express registrants don’t describe themselves as a “developer”. From a total number perspective, beginners are the largest segment of Express customers and they still find Express too complex, it has too many features, and they see development as a means to an end (I just want to create my kids soccer league Web site)." What kind of double speak is this? We don't want people using add-ins with our free version of VS because that's reserved for the commercial versions and you must pay for that functionality. vs We don't these "commercial" features in our free product because the people using the free product don't want it - nor are they ever going to buy the commercial version for any reason, especially Jamie's tool. Sometime, maybe before it's too late, you will learn to appreciate your user base contributing useful tools to your products for free. It only helps your business no matter how much you whine and pout about it hurting.
Anonymous
June 01, 2007
I'm enjoying the "it was a business decision" argument. I wish that when there was a big piece of unintended functionality in my applications I could claim it was a "business decision" :-) I think "it was a business decision" might translate to "oops, we forgot a use case." I happily pay for Visual Studio (even a copy for home), but why begrudge the guy who does the most with what he's given to work with?
Anonymous
June 01, 2007
I personally think that you might want to restrict the development of commercial, proprietary software using the Express editions and instead let people install extensions to the Express editions. Not only that, I personally think that you might want to consider allowing people to install additional plugins for various functionality. If, for example, a student is able to write sample applications on WCF/WF using an Express edition, you'll have quicker adoption of new technologies and frameworks
Anonymous
June 01, 2007
The comment has been removed
Anonymous
June 01, 2007
The comment has been removed
Anonymous
June 01, 2007
This is just amusing. Perhaps you should have designed the product in a way that limited it's extensibility, rather than relying on your ability to lawyer up. In the end, all you are doing is alienating the next generation of would be microsoft developers. I personally, won't code for MS platforms, and I won't use MS products where I can avoid it. This behavior is exactly why. It seems that Microsoft is more concerned with the MPAA and the RIAA than they are about their end customer, as evidenced with vista, and the zune. Sorry, but if I'm paying YOU for a product, I want to be able to use it as I see fit. Amazingly, there are people who have some sense of morality and ethics, and don't steal content, because they know it's wrong. You cannot legislate morality, any more than you can enforce it with technology. The zune deletes shared songs after a few plays or a few days. Even if they are not copy written. Thanks, that's what I, the end user really wanted. I'll stick with the competition that's not trying to dictate how I do things. Microsoft has in the past, and probably will in the future make some pretty good products, but at the end of the day, the authoritarianism is what keeps me from buying any more of your stuff.
Anonymous
June 01, 2007
What happened to: Developers!! Developers!!! DEVELOPERS!!!!
Anonymous
June 01, 2007
This may already have been asked, but I got tired of reading the complaints about the licensing issue, mine is a little simpler: IF the application could not be "extended", ie, it blocked the ability to do such, how was Jamie able to do so? And it's completely unclear as to how he's violating a license with this - unless he's modifying the distribution and redistributing it?
Anonymous
June 01, 2007
The comment has been removed
Anonymous
June 01, 2007
Dan, Maybe you should get the folks working under you to use Testdriven.Net . Then you might have had a better chance to release VS Express without the ability to support extensions. I find your stand extremely laughable. Remember, you're losing the alpha geeks and the brain trust. VR
Anonymous
June 01, 2007
The comment has been removed
Anonymous
June 01, 2007
This kind of thing makes me so glad to be an Eclipse user. What a joke Microsoft has become.
Anonymous
June 01, 2007
The comment has been removed
Anonymous
June 01, 2007
See it in action here . Frankly, it doesn't really matter who's right: Jamie or the tie-with-suit (a
Anonymous
June 01, 2007
The comment has been removed
Anonymous
June 01, 2007
I still dont see a response with the portion of the agreement which states that he is in violation. Just another 'We have lots of lawyers, so eat it!' clubbing...
Anonymous
June 01, 2007
The comment has been removed
Anonymous
June 01, 2007
Corey, What exactly does Visual Studio have over Eclipse?
Anonymous
June 01, 2007
The comment has been removed
Anonymous
June 01, 2007
The comment has been removed
Anonymous
June 01, 2007
The comment has been removed
Anonymous
June 01, 2007
The comment has been removed
Anonymous
June 01, 2007
I personally would not even start building an add-on to something that I have no control over. In this case extensibility hooks of the Express Edition can be removed, and render the add-in, which took many hours of work to build, unusable. There is no such thing as partial freedom. Either you let something free (free as in freedom, not as in beer) or you do not.
Anonymous
June 01, 2007
Why does MS get made out as the bad guy when they have been asking this guy to stop breaking the rules for so long? How about follow the rules and MS will leave you be? I can't afford a VS license, so if the choice is VS Express with no TestDriven.NET or nothing then TestDriven.NET can go jump in a lake. This is just more typical MS bashing.
Anonymous
June 01, 2007
Shows how much MS cares about the community that supports them...
Anonymous
June 01, 2007
To much comment FUD is going around right now. Stop it please! TDD is still possible with the Express
Anonymous
June 01, 2007
The comment has been removed
Anonymous
June 01, 2007
The comment has been removed
Anonymous
June 01, 2007
The comment has been removed
Anonymous
June 01, 2007
Hey Dan, if you're feeling bad about all this, then do something good: make the next Visual Studio free! The day you put that on your blog, you will get positive reactions for sure. After all, it was supposed to be about the developers, right? Unless you're telling us your real customers are not the developers, but the VSIPs...
Anonymous
June 01, 2007
The comment has been removed
Anonymous
June 01, 2007
You compete directly with open source, and you're loosing the mindshare wars for developers. While you might have a good argument for why getting rid of this piece of software makes sense from a very narrow business position, it's extremely poor strategy. Your core message? "We attack our developers."
Anonymous
June 01, 2007
The comment has been removed
Anonymous
June 01, 2007
Once again Microsoft goes out of its way to prove it has NO clue whatsoever when it comes to customer relations or making a genuinely useful product without artificial limitations. Wake up guys, you didn't disable the functionality so he isn't "working around any technical limitations". That's like not putting a doorknob on a door and then claiming that you aren't allowed to push it open.
Anonymous
June 01, 2007
The comment has been removed
Anonymous
June 01, 2007
Gee, no one sues me or has their lawyers write me threatening letters if I develop an extension for Eclipse or NetBeans.
Anonymous
June 01, 2007
The comment has been removed
Anonymous
June 01, 2007
Visual Studio Express was a "labor of love"? Huh. All along I thought it was a smart strategic move to avoid Eclipse and gcc capturing the bottom end of the developer tools market.
Anonymous
June 01, 2007
The comment has been removed
Anonymous
June 01, 2007
The comment has been removed
Anonymous
June 01, 2007
The comment has been removed
Anonymous
June 01, 2007
Not sure if someone's mentioned it or not...but does anyone else see the connection to the alleged patent infringements by Linux? Why is it that Microsoft's super-awesome legal defense team not come up with any documentation to back up their claims? Obviously (or not, depending on how you view it) someone had to do the research, so they should be able to give SOMETHING to us... In the end, it's just making MS look bad, and they're losing a lot of credibility, I think, because they're essentially making unsubstantiated claims. If they would just provide the evidence, and the world could say 'Hey, these packages ARE infringing' then the view towards MS would definitely be different.
Anonymous
June 01, 2007
The comment has been removed
Anonymous
June 01, 2007
I think it is hilarious for someone from Microsoft to attempt to bring ethics into any debate. Almost as hilarious as Microsoft's recent public "concern" about other software companies' potentially exhibiting monopolistic behavior. And ... just where is the repeatedly-requested EULA citation? As someone said, if there is a "direct violation" it should be easy to cite the text. The weaker your case, the more words you need. In this case, 633.
Anonymous
June 01, 2007
The comment has been removed
Anonymous
June 01, 2007
The comment has been removed
Anonymous
June 01, 2007
Do any of you open source guys that are claiming that developers are leaving VS in droves and that your tools are better have any links to back that up? Everything I've read says that the Java community is getting tired of watching C# surge ahead with new features while Sun drags it's feet on language enhancements to Java. For example, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_C_Sharp_and_Java
Anonymous
June 01, 2007
Express User "Why does MS get made out as the bad guy when they have been asking this guy to stop breaking the rules for so long? How about follow the rules and MS will leave you be? " Well Mr. User, if that is even your real name, NOBODY has been able to find this so called rule. As far as anybody can tell, it doesn't exist. Maybe you could do all of us a favor (not to mention the MS legal team) and find this rule somewhere. After all of the searching that everybody has done, it certainly seems most likely that this rule never made it into the EULA, and therefore doesn't apply. That would certainly be the simplest explanation! occams razor anyone?
Anonymous
June 01, 2007
JUnit + Eclipse = No Legal worries, and 3000 plus plug-ins.
Anonymous
June 01, 2007
sdether , sad to see you switched to the dark side. Please read this for reason (http://www.paulgraham.com/microsoft.html). MS is simply not innovator or leader of technology. And in this case, it also hightlight their corporate culture: bully. I'm glad I switched to java and stay away from MS few years ago. Good luck
Anonymous
June 01, 2007
The comment has been removed
Anonymous
June 01, 2007
I quickly wanted to respond to questions or misconceptions raised in the comments of my previous blog
Anonymous
June 01, 2007
If you were smarter you would have hired Jamie away from doing Java development at double his salary to integrate VS with all common testing platforms. But never underestimate the lack of strategic thinking of a middle manager.
Anonymous
June 01, 2007
The question Jamie Cansdale and other customers might/should be asking is: Is there another .Net/C# implementation that doesn't apply these restrictions? Answer: There is. It is pretty good and cross platform too. Depends on what is most important to you I guess. Jamie, go where your contribution is appreciated.
Anonymous
June 01, 2007
While I'm usually an ardent Microsoft supporter I too feel Microsoft is in the wrong here this time. And sending laywers is not a positive message to send to the industry, developers, hobbiests or anyone.
Anonymous
June 01, 2007
I don't see what the problem is. Microsoft owns the code to Visual Studio Express, so they should be able to BLOCK the use of add-ins using technology instead of legalese. Jamie simply found a work-around to support what many people consider to be essential functionality. And now Microsoft is resorting to lawyers to do what their developers apparently can't. I gotta say, that doesn't inspire confidence in their technical abilities.
Anonymous
June 01, 2007
Wow, people here really just don't get it. TestDriven.NET is NOT a free plugin. Jamie is charging money for it, it is a commercial product. That means that somebody would be profiting off of a product that Microsoft put out there for free. How much sense does that make? If somebody took the code you wrote, added their own stuff, then started charging money for the new product, how would you feel about that? Especially if you had told them that they should not do that? I mean, you can say all you want that the EULA doesn't explicitly cover it, but surprisingly there are no other plugin writers who did what Jamie is doing. How did that happen? All the other plugin writers just decided they didn't feel like making money off of VS Express? Or maybe Jamie did in fact completely violate the trust that MS put out to the software vendors when they make VS Express free! If TestDriven.NET starts offering their plugin for free on VS Express, then that would change the situation (and I'm pretty sure MS wouldn't prosecute in that case). But in this case, it's clear that somebody is profiting off of MS's free software despite MS's wishes, and Jamie is in the wrong.
Anonymous
June 01, 2007
The comment has been removed
Anonymous
June 01, 2007
Obviously, Chris hasn't done any basic research on this issue - like visiting Jamie's web site: "Wow, people here really just don't get it. TestDriven.NET is NOT a free plugin. Jamie is charging money for it, it is a commercial product. That means that somebody would be profiting off of a product that Microsoft put out there for free." Jamie provides TestDriven.NET for free (http://www.testdriven.net/download_release.aspx?LicenceType=Personal) to the exact same audience which is the target market for Express. In the future, please do you research. BTW, Jamie is essentially distributing his product on the honor system. You can get this for free and use it as a professional. But, Jamie is doing the right thing. He is supporting the eco-system! You said: "If TestDriven.NET starts offering their plugin for free on VS Express, then that would change the situation (and I'm pretty sure MS wouldn't prosecute in that case)." So, will you know change your position and say that Microsoft is in the wrong here? Yours, Jordan Dea-Mattson
Anonymous
June 01, 2007
The comment has been removed
Anonymous
June 01, 2007
The comment has been removed
Anonymous
June 01, 2007
The comment has been removed
Anonymous
June 01, 2007
Microsoft, thank you for getting people to use other software such as Ruby on Rails!
Anonymous
June 01, 2007
I see a lot of people stating that "EULA's must be adhered to" and other such nonsense. EULA's have never been upheld in court... they are very dubious legally... and in fact there's nothing to stop you from changing the EULA before you click I agree. EULA's CLEARLY violate the doctrine of first sale.
Anonymous
June 01, 2007
Dan, Thanks for posting your comments. I guess it is good that you are trying to communicate. However it looks like it's now working so well. Some of us think MS is right, most of us think MS is wrong. Who was it that said there is no such thing as bad publicity? To me, it's clear that right and wrong; legailities and illegalities; won't sort out the impressions MS is leaving. It's such a shame that much of the hard work of softies to open up, to be responsive, to build community can be damaged quickly by executives, laywers and others. These people don't care about developers or MS. They are going through motions for whoever pays them the most. 235 patents, EULA, Martin Fowler, Mike Gunderloy, Frans Bouma, Me. I wonder if down the road, looking back, you will think it was worth it? Peace.
Anonymous
June 01, 2007
I developed a Ruby On Rails database adapter for Microsoft SQL Server in Visual C++ Express. I didn't get paid for it. I just put it out there. For the community's benefit. So developers could integrate with Microsoft SQL Server. Microsoft wasn't doing me a favor by offering VC++Express for free. I was doing them a favor. As much potential as Jon Lam's work has, and as exciting as that was, you've (representing Microsoft) wiped out any good will that may have generated, and at least for the near-term, and musings about giving Microsoft a slice of my development time by experimenting with IronRuby.
Anonymous
June 01, 2007
The comment has been removed
Anonymous
June 01, 2007
The comment has been removed
Anonymous
June 01, 2007
@John? "(VS has a better debugger)." You do realize that the CLR Debugger that comes with the .NET 2.0 SDK does what you want, and is available for no charge and no restrictive EULA?
Anonymous
June 01, 2007
Can't belive all this oh-Microsoft-bad-you-are stuff, for instance: "As for Microsoft. If this functionality is not meant to be supported in VS Express why on earth is it present in the binary? If you don't want it to work then: a) Don't include the code to make it work AND MORE IMPORTANTLY b) Don't include an API to allow a 3rd party to use it" Actually, it's much more simple. Microsoft is excellent marketing agency. They don't build software, they SELL software. And they are doing it quite well. Quite well, indeed. So, they've built Vstudio. You need to pay for it. (Actually, you don't buy the package, you buy the licence to use it! How silly is that?). Then you have Vstudio.express. You don't have to pay for it, but you can't have addins. Then, out of nowhere, you can have an addin. The addin. The unit testing framework. The real stuff. The stuff people were buying Pro and above versions of Vstudio. Now noone will buy it. So they bark. People, there are so much better leaner and meaner environments for developing besides MS products. Just see them...
Anonymous
June 01, 2007
Thanks for yet again (and so consistently) making me right, fellas...
Anonymous
June 01, 2007
Someone wrote "Wow, people here really just don't get it. TestDriven.NET is NOT a free plugin. Jamie is charging money for it, it is a commercial product." This is utter baloney- TestDriven.NET is FREE. He's not making any money off of it, so stop lying about this. Jason (http://www.123game.net)
Anonymous
June 01, 2007
Jason, You can read the licensing terms for the different TestDriven.NET versions here - http://www.testdriven.net/purchase_licenses.aspx, but it is available for purchase from $99 for the professional version all the way up to $10,500 for an enterprise license. The TestDriven purchase page is available here - http://www.testdriven.net/purchase.aspx
Anonymous
June 01, 2007
The comment has been removed
Anonymous
June 01, 2007
The comment has been removed
Anonymous
June 01, 2007
There is a cold chill in the air today. For those of you that don't pay attention in the developer world,
Anonymous
June 01, 2007
The comment has been removed
Anonymous
June 01, 2007
When it came to the decision whether to release Express or not to release Express, ... I'd have preferred them not to have released VS.
Anonymous
June 01, 2007
The comment has been removed
Anonymous
June 01, 2007
I hate Java. I think it was defective by design and is only beginning to correct its follies. I love the design of .NET. Visual Studio is remarkably elegant. But I still use Java for exactly these same reasons. That's because I know MS wants to control fundamental tools. I know that while Mono provides an alternative to deploying .NET on other OSes, this "Microsoft is a business at the end of the day" talk means that MS WILL sabotage Mono the minute it turns out to be complete (and competitive) alternative to .NET. The world has changed. If you have this We own this intellectual property/patent mentality and fail to understand that your tools at best seed an ecosystem rather than create it in its entirety, I and others like me will choose tools that are safer bets in the long run even though your product is a better one now. Please realize why Sun had to GPL Java (and benefited from it). A sensible community simply cannot build a castle on the assumption that the vendor will always play nice.
Anonymous
June 01, 2007
You guys need to decide whether you are an OS company or a compiler company. If you are an OS company, then you should do whatever it takes to make life easy for people writing applications for your OS. If you are a compiler company, then you should do whatever it takes to sell compilers. You cannot do both effectively.
Anonymous
June 01, 2007
Keep it up MS. Sue more developers who like your products. A lot more of them. Alienate more of your MVP's. Alienate your entire community of developers over a few dollars. Turn all of them into your enemies. Continue to focus on grabbing pennies while dollars are running through your fingers. I love to see you continually shooting yourself in the foot and creating enemies where you once had only friends. You are destroying yourself from the ground up, and are so arrogant you can't see the only possible result of your own behavior. What's coming to you couldn't happen to a more deserving organization. Keep on destroying your own foundation. The world will cheer when you fall. I love it when you expose your real character for the world to see. Why? Because character really does matter. Deep down almost everyone but you understands that, but your character as an organization is so corrupt you just can't help doing what you do. Long live Open Source!
Anonymous
June 01, 2007
Doesn't any addin to Visual Studio provide functionality that is not provided OOB? In that case all addins could be considered illegal. Funny thing
Anonymous
June 01, 2007
The comment has been removed
Anonymous
June 01, 2007
The comment has been removed
Anonymous
June 01, 2007
The comment has been removed
Anonymous
June 01, 2007
You people should get a grip and stop looking a gift horse in the mouth. We're talking about MS here, the most proprietary company of the world, in of the rare occasions it releases a product for free. This doesn't make them FOSS from one moment to another so stop comparing them and judging them as such. Going after Jamie legally is not the worst they can do; it's start charging for VSE or even ditching it. What part of "take it as is or leave it" you don't understand ?
Anonymous
June 02, 2007
Does Microsoft have a "Freedom to innovate" network? Perhaps they should change the name to "freedom to prevent others innovating".
Anonymous
June 02, 2007
The comment has been removed
Anonymous
June 02, 2007
The comment has been removed
Anonymous
June 02, 2007
The comment has been removed
Anonymous
June 02, 2007
Take your Express edition and stuff it, I say. Let potential future Windows developers learn elsewhere and maybe the world will be a better place. What, Microsoft doesn't make enough money on Windows and Office, it has to soak developers, too? Every Apple computer comes with free developer tools, including a very nice IDE in XCode. Java and Eclipse are likewise freely available. I say this now as an MSDN Universal subscriber who's been writing drivers and applications for Microsoft's platforms since the early versions of MS-DOS in the 80s: stuff it. I'm sick of your company, even if the market has me locked into writing code for it. Call off the lawyers. Jamie did you idiots and us developers a huge favor, and you're roasting him for it. Yes, I'd rather see Express not be available at all. I think that's a fine, fine idea. The less folks building software for your platforms, the more you lose your grip on the market. Your corporate ego clearly needs such a lesson in humility.
Anonymous
June 02, 2007
I agree with MS in this matter. The limitations and license-agreements of VS Express is comparable to those of the thousands of freeware/shareware products used by millions every day. In respect as well as law: the limitations of the free editions are not supposed to be "bypassed" just because you can.
Anonymous
June 02, 2007
If Express is not supposed to have add-ins, then don't compile/ship it with the possibility to do so.
Anonymous
June 02, 2007
to Jason and danielle, Just to get some facts straight:

TestDriven.NET is FREE when used with Visual Studio Express Edition.
TestDriven.NET costs $99 for commercial use.
Microsoft is asking Jamie to remove support of TestDriven.NET from the Express editions. That is, Microsoft demands target the FREE version of TestDriven.NET.

Anonymous
June 02, 2007
I realize this is a radical suggestion, but how about listening to your customers instead of your lawyers? I feel that the whole idea of attempting to tap your software developers as a profit base is a huge mistake. It was my impression that VC Express was released in order to compete with the excellent and free development tools in Linux. I love VC Express. I use VC Professional on my desktop computer but I like to use Express on my laptop. The most annoying thing about VC Express is the seemingly arbitrary decisions that were made about what would and would not be included in the software. The lack of a resource editor is painfull for example. I cannot understand why third party extensions are not allowed. I don't even see how it is legal to prevent them from being developed. Your reaction to this developer makes me want to develop some sort of VC Express extension of my own. I have a feeling I am not alone.
Anonymous
June 02, 2007
The comment has been removed
Anonymous
June 02, 2007
As someone who does provide Visual Studio extension (unit test tools surprisingly enough), and does play by the rules in that we don't provide Express support, as it is clearly prohibited from our read of the license, it seems that fundamentally Visual Studio is Microsoft's product, and they can set the terms of use as they wish. I'm pretty happy to be able to extend it at all. Ultimately, if you are making extensions to other folk's products, you need to be a partner -- and that means working together by a shared set of rules. Breaking those rules either written or agreed to in conversation just doesn't seem as productive as negotiating to get the rules changed. I'd love to make extensions to Express, and will do so if Microsoft allows it -- but it isn't up to me to disregard their position just because folks want Express extensions.
Anonymous
June 02, 2007
To Dan. I hope you understand what PR disaster Microsoft has created for itself. MIX07? Silverlight? DLR? LINQ? It's not what people are talking about? It is this: Martin Fowler - RubyMicrosoft http://tinyurl.com/2jb56n Sam Gentile - Microsoft at the Crossroads http://tinyurl.com/24ve87 Scott Hanselman - Is Microsoft losing the Alpha Geeks? http://tinyurl.com/3axs2n And then all that Linux patent stuff and TestDriven.NET legal troubles. This is a big problem for all people using MS technology. Alpha geeks and community is a serious force in developing a platform, no effort of Microsoft to create their own tools can substitute for that. So if there is no community and no alpha geeks the MS platform perspective looks bleak and even people using it (having a big investment in it) are starting to think about moving from it to something else (Java, ROR, whatever), and they wouldn't even consider it before this PR disaster you helped to create. Hmmm, ROR on JRuby, Eclipse are starting to look very good to me now.
Anonymous
June 02, 2007
I am totally disappointed with MSFT. What a stupid decision, let the guy extend Express, if you say people are not looking for a Testing tool, why not leave the guy alone then?
Anonymous
June 02, 2007
The comment has been removed
Anonymous
June 02, 2007
The comment has been removed
Anonymous
June 02, 2007
>Ian Ringrose >When teaching someone how to program, I can not > imagine getting them to write code without unit tests. Ian, this is a FALSE assertion. Though I program in C# now, I have come across FORTRAN, MATLAB and Java programming as well and have referred several programming books on these language. I NEVER came across unit tests. This is vital topic only when teaching at intermediate/adavnced. At beginners level, it only complicates the matter and makes the leaner sluggish. If someone hates MS$, better they stick to $un's Netbeans which is alread Eclipsed. VSExpress should remain as simple as possible. Otherwise it'll dilute its own foundational idea and purpose. Dan, you people did great job in making VSExpress simple and free. We just look forward towards more such generous ventures. PMBCAN
Anonymous
June 02, 2007
The comment has been removed
Anonymous
June 02, 2007
The comment has been removed
Anonymous
June 02, 2007
Fix the code, fix the EULA, ships the update and you're done.
Anonymous
June 02, 2007
Free software should be able to extended with FREE Extenstions ! In fact Microsoft would best be served by giving ALL there development tools away since it's applications that sell an OS not OS functionality.
Anonymous
June 02, 2007
The comment has been removed
Anonymous
June 02, 2007
Have restrictive licences on VS Express Editions and someone is going to extend SharpDevelop. What then, boss?
Anonymous
June 03, 2007
The comment has been removed
Anonymous
June 03, 2007
FWLIW, does anyone know about how IBM lost the PC marketplace it had taken such pains to set-up? They had made the PC, partly to barge in to the marketplace Apple etc, had proven to exist. Then they discovered that it was getting very popular, so much so that it was starting to eat into their mainframe and minicomputer sales and support contracts. This could not be abided, so IBM set out to take the PC down - or at least, back into the fold. They came out with the PS/2, microchannel and OS/2 - though at that time Microsoft was the OS/2 publisher. By that time it was too late to bolt the stable door, and IBM lost control of that marketplace. They almost crashed and burned totally during the nineties. And why? Take a look at the lock-in that the PC didn't have, the extensiveness it did have, and all the add-ons and cloning that people like Compaq were able to do with it. It's nothing to do with the law as such, but everything to do with common practices that Microsoft has in the past taken advantage of. And that history lesson tells me that if Microsoft continues this stupidity, it won't have anyone else to blame but itself. Get your act together. Get real. You can't bolt the barn door after the horse has bolted and expect to see it back in its stable automagically. (End of rant/platitude/proverb. ;)
Anonymous
June 03, 2007
Is TestDriven.NET add-in really OPEN SOURCE?? The bold way some people discuss here, I am surprised at their naivety. As far as I can see, it is only an EXE file without any signature (company name) attached to it. then how a user will know what is being installed? How can I have some sort of assurance that this VSExpress add-in is safe and secure? Demand for more and more free add-ins might seem a genuine temptation, but SOPs must be followed to assure quality and safety for the target audience. Personally, I am for a lightweight, simple and free-forever product from one-source. Guillermo, who here is saying that Microsoft is a non-profit company. Or have you discovered it recently this top secret that Microsoft is for-profit organisation? Anybody who watches the whole IT industry with a holistic outlook might have noticed that Microsoft's strategy has changed in recent times for good. It is making things free or less expensive for low-income entities and generating profits from big corporate organisations via its big products. VSExpress has fuelled open-source development but only in a limited and indirect way sense. It can be seen at websites like codeproject.com. I only hope Microsoft (esp the VSExpress team) be cognizant of its inherent deficiencies (which has nothing to do with this third party free add-in episode) and then keep on improving. VSExpress must remain focused to beginners/learners/students. For hard-core Java developers, they should see the rise of C# as healthy competition, and should not panic as being threatened. PMBCAN
Anonymous
June 03, 2007
I am very disappointed with my company's behavior here. I guess we don't 'get it' any more. It is exactly this type of thing that will lead to the demise of a once great software company. Daniel, you should be ashamed of yourself. Thanks for helping to keep the stock price flat.
Anonymous
June 03, 2007
As someone who actually paid for VSTS I hope you destroy this guy. In a former life I had to deal with a situation where someone ripped off our product and used it without consent. It took three yeas but we finally won an injunction. Best of luck to you.
Anonymous
June 03, 2007
The comment has been removed
Anonymous
June 03, 2007
Unless you can say that he is violating paragraph x of section y of the license, you have no leg to stand on. If you can make such a statement, then why don't you and why haven't you (or your lawyers) in over a year (according to the other guy)? Unless there is a part of the license which prohibits him doing what he has done, you really need to blame your own legal teams who designed the license in the first place. If as you say the aim of Express was specifically not to allow any extension then it is up to your team of people who handle product releases / licenses to put that in the license. If someone has bought something from you under one set of conditions, you can't later change your mind and say 'no actually we don't want you to do that'. Basically unless the license did cover this situation (and you can point to part of it which does), you are trying to have your cake and eat it too. You rely on restrictive terms and conditions/ licenses for all sorts of things and want the courts to consider them accepted by people just by the act of being shown the license when first using the software (when you know that in reality people will not waste time trying to read and understand the incomprehensible lawyer-speak) and now you want people to also be restricted by what you DIDN'T put in the license which they didn't read. If you expect people to be bound by what is in the license, you can't expect them to be bound by what is NOT in the license. So how about giving us a section/subsection of the relevant license. Chris
Anonymous
June 03, 2007
Hmmm.... Any of you MS developers remember James Plamodon's words that came to light in the Comes vs MS trial this last winter? MS considers you to be "pawns" and to be wooed like you are a "one night stand". Sounds like James was telling the absolute truth despite his belated disavowals of his own training program. What happens when MS doesn't like what you do? This story shows you exactly what will happen to each of you if you do something that gets in MS's way, and MS's real attitude toward the community of developers.
Anonymous
June 03, 2007
MS really has lost the plot. In times like this I'm especially happy to have built my business on Adobe technologies. Glad to hear that MS is busy fighting its own people, let alone competitors.
Anonymous
June 03, 2007
You know, sometimes you really have to take a hard look at yourself in the mirror. If you look at Express, there is a tremendous amount of value being offered for free. Besides the tool itself, once you register, you get content that is worth thousands of dollars. That to me is a pretty good deal. What do you need to do in exchange? Not try to extend it. That's all. If you want to make a living extending VS, no problem, you can target the $499 VS Standard and above. If you join VSIP, then you can get great support and co-marketing. VSIP if you remember, used to cost $10K, now the base membership is free. The next level up is only $3K per year. It's funny, I really don't mind paying for software - Microsoft and otherwise. As an industry, we have very, very, very little overhead for our businesses. Even the smallest coffee kiosk requires almost $20K in equipment before it can open up. What does a software company need - a $2K computer from Dell and a $499 VS Standard and you're in business. We really have to be careful for what we wish for. If all software is free, then how is anyone (forget MSFT for a second) going to make any money? Are we all going to have to watch advertising ad nauseum? I say that we should support our own industry and pay for software, and also respect the rules put around software that is made free to us.
Anonymous
June 04, 2007
Can anyone say "James Plamadon", "pawns", and "one night stand" and not see the parallels in this story?
Anonymous
June 04, 2007
This is a GREAT thing for open-source... many developers will go to Eclipse. It will be for Eclipse what WGA did for GNU/Linux in general.
Anonymous
June 04, 2007
While i might agree that what Jamie has done was against the spirit of the VS.express idea, this in worst case represents an unethical behavior. If this was illegal, then microsoft executives would be in troubles long time ago, so obviously this is not an issue here. No one even expects them to behave ethically, because it is just business. the real issue was whether the license agreement was violated. The only part of the agreement which MS could try to enforce was the one about "technical limitations". However, Jamie used public API, purpose of which is to enable the VS extensions. He didn't circumvent the implemented mechanisms to enable this. So, obviously there was no technical limitation to extend the software. Therefore, this part of EULA was not violated. Maybe MS lawyers should have done better job in the first place, or maybe the developers should have removed the extension mechanism, but it is not Jamie's problem. Please MS, be more careful next time, so it won't happen again. Until then, don't blame others for unethical behavior, because it is really ridiculous to here that argument from your mouth
Anonymous
June 04, 2007
The comment has been removed
Anonymous
June 04, 2007
The comment has been removed
Anonymous
June 04, 2007
Each VSExpress download represent potentially new lines of code delivered to the MS World (some lines of code that won't work on MS competitor products, Linux, Mac, Java & co). It is no secret that the bulk of the money made by MS comes from Windows and Office. Everything that can contribute to facilitate development for Windows (such as TestDriven.NET) should be considered as a bless by MS. Following the same idea, all the MS tool suite should be delivered for free. What does the benefit made on all these tools represent against the benefit made on Windows/Office?
Anonymous
June 04, 2007
The comment has been removed
Anonymous
June 05, 2007
Schaden, I fall into category (1)a, (2), and I also develop on Microsoft platform for a living at an MS partner (so I live through all the hype and inevitable let-down, hence the bitterness that comes with experience), where does that put me ;)
Anonymous
June 05, 2007
The comment has been removed
Anonymous
June 05, 2007
What the fuss. No one is using VC# express after they get used to sharpdevlop 2.x. And nunit is there. BTW, Dan, can you make sure that VC# express's uninstaller work? I still got the dead bits limping around as the "Add/Remove Program" only happily removed the link over there without bothering reclaim my precious hard disk spaces.
Anonymous
June 05, 2007
The comment has been removed
Anonymous
June 05, 2007
I want to add my support to those who are asking Microsoft to be clear about what clause they feel Jamie has violated. As an author of Microsoft based free software, I'm concerned to see that he has been pursued by Microsoft for so long without any clear statement of this emerging, and now faces legal action. It makes me feel that this could happen to any of us who rise above the radar, which is not a very comfortable thought.
Anonymous
June 05, 2007
So, if we're not allowed to "work around the technical limitations" of Microsoft software, exactly what 3rd party software is allowed? Pretty much everything on my system is there because a Microsoft alternative either doesn't exist (Perl) or is grossly deficient (IE, WMP, etc.). Or perhaps Microsoft Legal is just trying to let customers like me know that it's just time to format this drive and use that Ubuntu Linux that everyone says is so great?
Anonymous
June 05, 2007
The comment has been removed
Anonymous
June 05, 2007
I had a similar thing happen to me when I was an MVP and I lost my "tag" back then too....It would have been simply sorted out if they had actually told Jamie what he had actually violated over a year ago, making someone face legal action without ever telling them previously what they had actually violated just shows how little heart there is from people higher up in Microsoft. Typical really though, happens far to often to people.
Anonymous
June 05, 2007
So giving the community a free tool in order to promote .NET and increase the .NET development community is suddenly a bad thing because someone improves your tool with much needed functionality for free? Embrace Testdriven.net and make it a special authorized Visual Studio Express. Require any new Express addin to be free and to be authorized by MS. Simple solution...
Anonymous
June 05, 2007
I forwarded this story to all my Microsoft-using acquaintances. Thanks for the Free/Open Source Software advocacy, Microsoft :)
Anonymous
June 05, 2007
The comment has been removed
Anonymous
June 05, 2007
This is a remarkable own goal for Microsoft, and practically an advertisement for the free software camp. You seem to have forgotten that, in the long run, it's all about the developers!
Anonymous
June 05, 2007
The comment has been removed
Anonymous
June 05, 2007
The comment has been removed
Anonymous
June 05, 2007
"The vast majority of our customer base, now with 14 million downloads, isn’t even professional developers, its non-professionals." I guess it serves the guy right for dealing with idiots of YOUR caliber.
Anonymous
June 05, 2007
This is just another great reason to use (and help improve, when chance permits) one of the open source development environments instead of VSE. -J
Anonymous
June 05, 2007
The comment has been removed
Anonymous
June 05, 2007
I have always preferred Microsoft development software and was especially pleased with the release of the Express products. I prefer to use ASP.Net over PHP when I can. The case of TestDriven.NET is disappointing, especially the removal of the guys MVP status as a type of punishment. I have a large dissertation project coming up soon and I must say this has pushed me to look at an alternative to Microsoft and ASP.Net
Anonymous
June 05, 2007
The comment has been removed
Anonymous
June 05, 2007
MS, who are you going to sue next? All your partners?
Anonymous
June 06, 2007
I think this is turning into a PR nightmare for Microsoft. At the end of the day, Jamie's work is enhancing a product they they own and support and is pulling the .Net movement ahead. Google would have embraced this situation rather then trying to squish members of the community .. particulary someone who has been given an award (by Microsoft) for his same contribution!
Anonymous
June 06, 2007
You should have a) Been clearer about this in your license and b) Told the user which part of the license they were violating. I honestly think MS dealt really badly with this. Your getting a lot of bad press and you deserve it.
Anonymous
June 06, 2007
So, in summary, so solve this issue, Microsoft can do one of : 1- programmatically disable extensions in VS express edition (issue a service pack) ; 2- point out which part of the EULA or whatever legally binding document is being violated by Jaimie. He says that he will then comply ; 3- stop whining and accept that what Jamie has done is actually a positive thing for Microsoft ; 4- sue the guy. Surely everyone can see that #4 is the worst possible course of action? Microsoft has had a whole year to do #1, #2 or indeed #3 and be done with it. I'm beginning to think that they are both legally and technically incompetent. Meanwhile, much more bad PR is forthcoming !
Anonymous
June 06, 2007
I can't believe I'm gonna say this, but you guys are right to enforce the terms in your EULA under any circumstances. Yes, the terms are some sort of vague about this being or not really a technical limitation. Either way, the purpose of TestDriven.Net is to widen it's user base. It's not even free, the enterprise edition cost like US$10,000 I believe if the tool was really free (not as free beer) MS wouldn't be messing with him. At last, I don't think that you should impose a technical limitation by limiting the software. If you didn't want this to happen then why would you ship your product with this blocked feature? Anyway, VSExpress is very good for a starter and I applaud for it being free, but also it's a shame for it not being free... as everything else.
Anonymous
June 06, 2007
The comment has been removed
Anonymous
June 06, 2007
Regardless of the technical legalities of this whole thing, Weber's rude and tightwad tactics make us (your customers) sick. As someone else mentioned, I will also support this breakaway movement. This battle was obviously not chosen wisely by Microsoft and it will hurt them more than it will help them, even if they succeed in killing Jamie's product availability. Microsoft (with tremendous help from Weber) is its own worst enemy.
Anonymous
June 06, 2007
It's VERY telling that in all correspondence, Microsoft and Jason Weber have refused to cite specific clauses of the EULA, despite repeated requests by Jamie. Instead, Weber first says he cannot, because he's not a lawyer, then spins around, does a toe-tap and lists what he BELIEVES is being violated in EULA. Very shoddy work and calls into question whether Weber has overstepped his authority. Did Weber, as Jamie hints in one of his final emails, come up with these violations on his own, or did he consult legal? If he consulted legal, then why is he so hesitant to list the reasons given by them? I think time will show that Jamie was always correct and that Weber did this on his own, then found himself so far down the path that he couldn't back out.
Anonymous
June 06, 2007
Since when has a court ever upheld the right of a company to impose a EULA on a customer? Just out of curiousity.
Anonymous
June 06, 2007
If Add-Ons aren't supposed to load into Express, then why do they? Microsoft should put the limit code in Express rather than require all Add-Ons to expressly (haha) limit themselves. This reminds me of the guy who used a webstats site's free API to display better graphs then the mother site. At first he was praised by the developers, like Jamie's MVP award, then slapped with legal cease and desist notices.
Anonymous
June 06, 2007
The comment has been removed
Anonymous
June 06, 2007
The comment has been removed
Anonymous
June 06, 2007
eulas, express, and lawyers oh my
Anonymous
June 06, 2007
The comment has been removed
Anonymous
June 06, 2007
Oh, you want to learn .NET? I would recommend Express, but they don't allow you to integrate your unit tests ... Try SharpDevelop or MonoDevelop. Or Eclipse. I code my C# projects with vim + nant (both on windows and linux)

As the CTO of a web development company that uses ASP.NET, I think this is absurd. I will recommend against Visual Studio for everyone wanting to learn .NET. You guys are ridiculous. Microsoft should be happy to provide better tools to get MORE PEOPLE USING .NET

Anonymous
June 06, 2007
The Apple II shipped with a free assembler and basic. It did well. The early Macs charged for any development environment. It didn't do as well. MacOS X ships with XCode free. It's doing quite well. Minix didn't allow for Linus Torvalds to develop a unix kernel, so he made his own. Minix isn't doing well. Early DOS shipped with free QBASIC. It did well. Vista is shipping, and now the free development environment is restricted. Dell's now selling Linux and XP. I won't debate the legality or EULA. But are you sure the word is Ethos, and not Hubris?
Anonymous
June 06, 2007
I have not read the entire blog, but have read the entire mail conversation between Jamie and Jason. To me the whole thing could have been resolved easily if Microsoft would only have told Jamie which API he was using that he wasn't allowed to use. And secondly would have allowed him to publish on his website this response from Microsoft. I only see a guy asking again and again "tell me what I'm doing wrong", and Microsoft replying "We're not telling, you naughty boy, now stop it!".
Anonymous
June 06, 2007
A couple of things.... People have asked why MS have left extensibility options in VS Express. Well, it's their habit to write software once and activate different features in a cascade from the license key. MSes Person Web Server became IIS if you loaded it on a server. NT workstation became NT server if you tweaked the registry. it's no surprise this habit continues in some form. The previous times this happened may be why it is forbidden to work around the technical limitations... Using the license is a poor method of control, but it's cheaper than redevelopment and diferent distros. Because the functionality is left in, it seems to me to be difficult to claim eula violation, afterall, if the exact same capacity exist in X, X1 and X2, but is turned off in X, it is automatic that to developing something for X2 and X3 will allow X to be extended if you take special steps to limit it. Why does MS not want VS Express extensible? Frankly, it is probably because it kows that once extensible, the community would make their commercial products look poor. MS already has issues with Gnu/Linux, having it's own freebies batter then their paid-for stuff would hurt. Should Microsoft simply buy and integrate the software and so make the issue go away? Well, MS has a reputation of redevoping other peoples ideas and aggressively driving the competition in to the ground. I seem to recall it paid damages in the past for 'stealing' some compression software and using it in the OS without license. I cannot remember if that was won on appeal, but DoubleSpace or Stacker rings a bell. And we all recall Netscape dont we :-) One last point. Sun and Apple are hardware developers. They sell MACHINES. MS is a software house. Sun and Apple give away full featured versions of their development environment because their business is really hardware (which incidently is why their OSes rock). MS produce a several generic 'windws' OSes for a gazillion vendors. THEY NEED THEIR SOFTWARE INCOME. So they protect it. MS is really in trouble from the GNU/Linux stuff. They dont need their own stuff going the sam way. They need your dollars, so donate today. MW. ps Ruby on the Rails Rocks!!!
Anonymous
June 06, 2007
This is what you get with a proprietary operating system and language. Having said that this is very short sighted of Microsoft to limit the amount of innovation in their platform. Isn't innovation that has always been promoted by Microsoft? Or shall we say innovation in Microsoft terms? Anyway, I program in the "alternative" programming language which is a little bit freer and I am glad I didn't sell my soul to Microsoft world.
Anonymous
June 06, 2007
Hey big MS dude - anyone who "I just want to create my kids soccer league Web site" can do that with notepad/jedit/vi and filezilla. If you want it a bit more fancy then download php, need a database mySQL. Of course you could get all these and a web server for free with Linux or OS X. So no need to worry MS, the poor simple have a go programmers can get by without you wasting your money on providing tools at your expense. lol For myself I have the misery of using ASP.NET/SQL Server in my job, in my own time I use PHP/mySQL to generate proper XHTML/CSS. As someone already said - EULA never been tested in court has it?
Anonymous
June 06, 2007
The comment has been removed
Anonymous
June 06, 2007
The comment has been removed
Anonymous
June 06, 2007
The big question is: If Microsoft doesn't want the product extended why is it technically possible to extend it? Why have the functionality there where you're just taking it in good faith that no one will "violate" the non-extension clause of an EULA? Write the version in such a way that extensions wont work at all if you don't want the extensions to work! It's so simple. The other question however is how is the developer on the hook for violating a clause in an end user license agreement? I'm sure it's possible to create an extension without installing the software in which case the developer never agreed to the EULA and isn't bound by it. The USERS would be for downloading and installing the extensions.
Anonymous
June 06, 2007
Hey Daniel, How come you are so quick to rebut a comment that Testdriven is free (responding at midnight to a statement put on the posts less than 2 hours earlier), but you can't seem to find time to respond to the dozen's of people asking you to clarify what clause in the EULA was "directly violated"? You should either back up what you say with some evidence or grow some ethics and withdraw your smears.
Anonymous
June 06, 2007
The comment has been removed
Anonymous
June 06, 2007
"Jamie, if your heart is in it for the community, then give away your product too, or are you holding Microsoft to a higher standard that you hold yourself? Does the fact that you are small and Microsoft is big really make any difference?" Geoff, your rant is so completely beside the point that it was painful to read. Please inform yourself prior to forming your opinion and making such comments. Jamie's app has always been available for free; it still is to this day. In fact, when Jason Weber originally contacted him, there was not even such a thing as a paid TestDrivent.net license. Additionally, I don't think anyone is disputing that Microsoft can do what they want with their product -- as long as they make it clear (the existing EULA sure does not!). What's unbelievable to many of us is how Jamie was bullied and belittled... it's all already been said many times. Leon's post for example sums up my opinion pretty well: http://www.secretgeek.net/testdrivengate.asp
Anonymous
June 06, 2007
The comment has been removed
Anonymous
June 06, 2007
The comment has been removed
Anonymous
June 06, 2007
Consumer contracts, the contract your supermarket offers you when you buy food, or the contract you enter when you buy a television, are often protected by law. There are legal requirements on those contracts. Apart from that, breaking a contract is not illegal. Breaking a contract is not against the law. In fact, breaking a contract is done so often that the courts are full of people working out the commercial consequences. That's what the civil courts are for.
Anonymous
June 06, 2007
The comment has been removed
Anonymous
June 06, 2007
My transition to Linux and FOSS development tools is nearly complete! This episode certainly vindicates my decision!
Anonymous
June 06, 2007
The comment has been removed
Anonymous
June 06, 2007
The comment has been removed
Anonymous
June 06, 2007
Dan, good you opened your blog. Now you can hear what people think about Microsoft. And I think this guy Jamie got what he deserves.
Anonymous
June 06, 2007
The comment has been removed
Anonymous
June 06, 2007
Well, as have been the case so many times before, Microsoft uses its legal powers to attack its userbase. The "legality" of their claim remains to be seen. As with all their claims, they never tell what "law" you have broken, just that you break "some law"... If anyone from MS actually reads this, I dare them to actually go to court with any of their claims... None of them are valid and they know it!
Anonymous
June 06, 2007
So uncool. Still, the more Microsoft make themselves less relevant the better as far as I'm concerned.
Anonymous
June 06, 2007
The comment has been removed
Anonymous
June 06, 2007
Was trying to figure out whether to go with VSE or XCode. I guess I have my answer now.
Anonymous
June 06, 2007
The comment has been removed
Anonymous
June 06, 2007
Good posting I believe, I'm siding with MS on this one. Firstly to offer the Express range for commerical use is over and above the call of duty. As a fully fledged .net developer, i can say thanks for express which i use at home. Why i would want unit tests for the type of developments i use express for is a bit beyond me, at work (fully licensed professional edition) where correctness is key i'd use it. But home projects are a bit like home brewed beer, you never know the outcome because there is little or no point in knowing it. You learn through the brewing process, before buying the more expensive brewing kit. I think the problem is that when people get something for free they assume they can do what they like with it, the problem lies with enforcing EULA's by relying on it being read and followed. They never are, just like speed signs.
Anonymous
June 06, 2007
The more you tighten your grip, Microsoft, the more developers will slip through your fingers.
Anonymous
June 07, 2007
For pete's sake what is wrong with you people at Microsoft. You obviously care more about money than your corporate image. Don't use bulls*it phrases like 'the Express ethos'. In other words, you are more worried about the revenue impact of people not buying full versions that are able to 'legally' use TestDriven.net, if it is available for the Express Version. We can all see through your blog spins and legal speak. So quit patronising us with more of this diatribe and for once, be a man and tell it like it is. In fact, I'll even say it for you: "Allowing TestDriven.net functionality in an Express version will impact upon our sales and revenue for the full product cos people won't bother to buy it when they can have the free version with unit testing abilities thrown in" There - wasn't hard was it.
Anonymous
June 07, 2007
Is Microsoft is using Express edition to develop their soft ?? Cause it seems that no test are made (vista, bug in sql server 2005, etc...)
Anonymous
June 07, 2007
From the blog: "As for Jamie, we’ve been asking him in multiple emails and conference calls to stop extending (just Express) since before Visual Studio 2005 even shipped. We even got the General Manager of Visual Studio to personally talk to him on the phone to plead with him to remove Express extensibility." The fact that Microsoft asked Jamie is abundantly clear. The point that Microsoft seems to have been consistently ignoring is that Jamie wants to know why he should do that. Other people clearly like it that it works in Express. What good does it do to have a General Manager plead with Jamie if even he can't explain how the license was violated? From microsoft's point of view it's: "Look at all the trouble we've gone through talking to this guy!", but from Jamie's point of view it's: "Why don't all those Microsoft people answer this simple question?" Why waste all that effort beggin and pleading (and insulting; I've read the actual email exchange) if you're not willing to answer the one question that matters to him? To me, it seems like Microsoft likes to pretend Jamie has violated a license, when actually he hasn't. If he had, MS could have simply answered his question, right?
Anonymous
June 07, 2007
It's very noticeable that you still have not specified what part of the EULA Jamie Cansdale is violating. I think there was a loophole in the EULA and I think you're trying to obfuscate that. If there's a loophole, that's too bad for Microsoft, but that's what Microsoft's legal department is there for: to write the license properly, not to bully small developers. If they goofed they goofed. To suggest that Cansdale has a responsibility to support Microsoft's "business decision to not allow 3rd party extensibility in Express" is to hold him to a higher standard of conduct than Microsoft displays. Microsoft didn't bar what Cansdale is doing technically and I don't believe they barred it in the license. Microsoft should just shut up. The bad will this is creating has already cost Microsoft more money than they would have made from people upgrading to Visual C++ in order to use Cansdale's tool.
Anonymous
June 07, 2007
I have to agree here, the underlying issue, is that not once, in any email, blog post, or monkey scribble on walls is there clearly defined quoting of where in the EULA there was a "direct violation." Yet, this those words have been thrown around. I have mixed feelings about the matter overall, however, if I was arrested and charged with the 1st degree homicide of my neighbor and the state had "direct evidence", I would want to see it. In fact my wife, my kids, my friends, my family, and even my employer ironically would want to see it. In fact, and most important, I would be entitled to see it. Yet MS remains silent...Wow. Put up or shut up with your "direct violation".
Anonymous
June 07, 2007
Scott Roberts wrote: "Suppose it's NOT a violation of the EULA and it's EASY to create an add-in for Express, but MS has clearly (and repeatedly) asked that it not be done. Shouldn't that be good enough? When someone asks you not to violate their product, shouldn't you respect that?" I must say it's almost surreal to hear this request on behalf of Microsoft? How often has Microsoft respected friendly requests to play nice? Over its entire existence, Microsoft has explicitly and purposefully pushed the boundaries of legality with no consideration of ethics, and now small developers suddenly have to play nice with poor old Microsoft? Let the bigger player give the right example first.
Anonymous
June 07, 2007
The comment has been removed
Anonymous
June 07, 2007
The comment has been removed
Anonymous
June 07, 2007
The comment has been removed
Anonymous
June 07, 2007
The comment has been removed
Anonymous
June 07, 2007
So you can't specify the part of the licence that he's violated, and you can't modify the software to stop the violation? First the Office 2007 UI licensing fiasco, then this. Really, honestly, could you guys BE any more stupid? I thought the days of competing via lawyers had ended, but it seems that those who don't learn the lessons of history are doomed to repeat them.
Anonymous
June 07, 2007
If i write a extension without visual studio express, do i violate the EUA? what if i write a extension for express edtion with my professional edtion?
Anonymous
June 07, 2007
The comment has been removed
Anonymous
June 07, 2007
Microsoft wants to compete with free tools releasing a dumbed-down version of Visual Studio for free - I can understand that. Also it wants to keep the revenue from the commercial product by not enabling extension - I can understand this one too. But why lie about it? "Ethos" or other nonsense. Say it square: "We don't want it because we lose money. All this free stuff is just for getting you to pay, so don't mess with our business plan." People will rumble about "greedy company", but they'll understand the truth.
Anonymous
June 07, 2007
It seems to me that either Microsoft clearly establishes the "illegal" nature of the tool developed by Mr. Cansdale (i.e., quotes SPECIFIC contract/licensing clauses that have been broken, like Mr. Cansdale himself and many others here have repeatedly requested) or the software giant will be the one under legal liability, namely, for defamation (in this case, libel). If I were in Mr. Cansdale's shoes, I would definitely be seeking legal compensation for damages by now, and quoting this blog and some of the posts here as evidence. If even only 1% of the community believes him to be guilty of something illegal, that is, in itself, a large number of his peers that will be lead by Microsoft to believe that he is an unethical wrongdoer. I'm not a lawyer (nor even a code-writer of any sort, for that matter), but it seems to me that no individual or organization can accuse anyone of undertaking illegal activities without clearlybeing able to demonstrate that fact. Thus, it is quite clear to me that Microsoft has voluntarily put itself into the situation where it has to prove that illegal activity was done otherwise the corporation will be the one in legal hotwater over this issue.
Anonymous
June 07, 2007
The comment has been removed
Anonymous
June 07, 2007
The comment has been removed
Anonymous
June 07, 2007
Can someone from Microsoft, or anyone for that matter please point out what part of the EULA he is reportedly violating? It has been said that he is violating a specific piece of the EULA, but no-one has yet said what piece. Time to show your cards Microsoft, I think most of us are betting that you're bluffing.
Anonymous
June 08, 2007
Microsoft does not get to decide what's legal and what's not. Courts do. Accusing Jamie of doing something illegal (you quickly and sheepishly deleted the words, but you can't delete caches and screenshots) not only shows you have no idea of what you talk about, but it furthermore exposes you to a libel suit, which If I were Jamie I would definitely do.
Anonymous
June 09, 2007
The comment has been removed
Anonymous
June 10, 2007
The comment has been removed
Anonymous
June 11, 2007
There's been a lot of talk going on in the Microsoft community ( here , here , here , and here ) lately
Anonymous
June 11, 2007
The license allow to develop commercial aplications with Visual Studio Express, but don't allow develop commercial applications that extends Visual Studio Express.... it's really funny. or a serious license text problem :-)
Anonymous
June 15, 2007
The comment has been removed
Anonymous
June 17, 2007
The comment has been removed
Anonymous
June 22, 2007
Sorry, I just don't see how your logic works. You don't have to do anything to support this tool. It's free to you, you don't pay the developer that makes the tool. They make your products look better. Now, you go and attack them, raising the ire of your customers. Duh duh duh. Good move morons.
Anonymous
June 22, 2007
Yet another reason why I will put all the pressure I have to bear at all times in the future to make sure M$ does not get any more AF or DOD contracts. I see them as an extreme waste of taxpayer money, and every time we buy more software from them, it makes it harder for me to do my job. For my home projects, I'm completely switching off .NET. I've had it.
Anonymous
July 14, 2007
spread the love, join the eclipse wagon. MS will eat your soul
Anonymous
August 09, 2007
The comment has been removed
Anonymous
November 05, 2007
This has got to be one of the most amusing posts I've read in a while - talk about two contrasting views. the author of the post and many of those commenting on it. I have to say, I've never read the EULA for Express because I don't use it, but...

If it states that you cannot extend VS Expresss then Jamie is wrong to do so and MS is quite within their rights to ask him to cease doing so.
If you want a free dev. environment with unit testing etc. built in for C# then you can always look into alternatives, I just looked at the #Develop (SharpDevelop) web site which states it has integrated NUnit support and NCover amongst other features. Not bad !
If Microsoft didn't want to allow Express to be extended then it should have "properly" disabled it from being extended. Very trusting or naive of MS to think nobody would try to extend Express if they had the opportunity.
By crying foul for somebody trying to extend Express - MS have yet again totally missed the point - if you supply a tool to the community then expect the community to try to use it how they want. If you leave holes in the product then expect those hols to be used in ways you may disagree with. Basically I'd say to Jamie, remove the support for TestDriven from the Express edition - don't waste your time on this and to those who want such functionality look to support a "real community" development tool instead. It's within MS's rights to turn off extensible functionality but for goodness sake MS, just do it and stop whinging. For me, I'm fortunate enough to not use the Express edition and long may that continue as I doubt I would waste my time using such a tool if other more extensible and feature rich alternatives existed.

Anonymous
December 05, 2007
I'm with Microsoft actually. What's the point in having a Pro version if the Express is the same? Sure it's rough that some newbies can't get into unit testing via the IDE (but they can still use nunit dont forget!). At the same time, technically removing the ability to extend would have prevented this mess. If Jamie did it without realising, then he sure wouldn't want to undo a lot of work (and add-ins are a frickin nightmare!)
Anonymous
December 11, 2007
The comment has been removed
Anonymous
February 08, 2008
Incredible. MS should be exited by such initiatives and recognize them as chances to get developers on board who currently won't touch anything coming from MS.
Anonymous
June 25, 2008
Hey MS weak developers, can't you just fix the code and submit a patch to prevent the express from installing an AddIn in the first place ??? Or you don't know how to fix it, instead rely on a bunch of lawyers to fix it.
Anonymous
July 30, 2008
microsoft knows that without providing a free ide like express it can't compete with java for developershare, so there is no reason for testdriven to heed ms's concerns about their extension to express. ms can't do anything about it.
Anonymous
August 22, 2008
The comment has been removed
Anonymous
August 25, 2008
Microsoft should be thankful that there are talented people who use their products and do their best to extend or improve it. This is highly encouraged in a Java community. I just don't understand why Microsoft insists on not making the Express Edition any better for them.
Anonymous
January 12, 2009
The comment has been removed
Anonymous
July 02, 2009
The comment has been removed
Anonymous
March 18, 2010
I have an express edition vb.net 2008 and am trying to add multiple timing codes in multiple forms. Did I hit a programming landmine?:) It seems as though the code at the end of the project somehow controls the beginning of the project. Do timers turn on in sequence or the second the application is activated?

Share via

Visual Studio Express and TestDriven.NET

Comments

What would be the response if I took Linux, made a bunch of code changes and distributed the new binaries but refused to give out the source code? Everybody on the planet would come down on me for violating the terms of the GPL. So why are people not doing the same here?

Additional resources