From: John Beckett 

Mike N.  wrote in message
news::
>    Is there a link to Microsoft's side that explains Weber's position?   It
> sounds like the lawyers forgot to include an important clause in the VS
> Express EULA, and are trying to back-door-lawyer it in through
> intimidation.

What I was talking about was an informal commentary from the Microsoft pov
(I doubt if we'll see any official MS statement before the legal situation
is clarified):

Dan Fernandez's Blog
Visual Studio Express and TestDriven.NET, May 31, 2007
http://blogs.msdn.com/danielfe/archive/2007/05/31/visual-studio-express-and-tes
tdriven-net.aspx

One problem for Microsoft is (apparently) that the EULA is not really
clear. There are (I'm told) some catch-all phrases that probably cover the
situation in question, but there's nothing that a human can point to and
say "Ah, that's where it says you can't do stuff to VS Express".

Another problem is that (apparently) Microsoft designed Visual Studio
Express so that it would NOT take add-ins, but Jamie Cansdale found a way
to do the impossible (i.e. the restriction was more of a reminder than a
brick wall).

My comment about the guy sounding like a jerk is that if you get a couple
of important people from Microsoft calling you, and they strongly suggest
you are not doing the right thing by a EULA, and they strongly ask you to
stop ... well you can't really complain when they take the next step.

I just can't see that Jamie has picked any great moral high ground on which
to fight. Certainly I would be pissed off if Jamie broke the restrictions I
placed on a free program that I had written, where I had attached a EULA
prohibiting add-ins. If I could afford the legals, I would nail him.

John

--- BBBS/NT v4.01 Flag-5