Kirill Grouchnikov's Blog

Software licenses, the letter and the spirit

Some of you most probably have heard about the latest round of "Microsoft against open source". It all started here when a developer of a plugin for various versions of VS.NET has decided to vent his feelings over a two-year long dispute with Microsoft over the license terms of free version of the Microsoft IDE and whether his plugin is in violation of its EULA. There's a lengthy e-mail exchange (hopefully complete and unabridged), and it's quite an interesting read. I highly recommend reading it before jumping to any conclusions.

The lead product manager of Microsoft has promptly responded here and here, and the comments are interesting as well (coming from both sides of the "fence"). And now it gets interesting.

The story was picked up by The Register, providing a highly biased and opinionated view on the subject. The plugin developer is portrayed as the ultimate victim, and Microsoft is portrayed as the ultimate villain. From here, the story was picked by the usual suspects, including SlashDot and others, making its way to JavaLobby as well.

I usually don't do this, but i have decided to copy-paste the comment i left on that Javalobby thread to my own blog. So here it is:

----------------------------------

Everybody applauds FSF for making a special clause in GPLv3 that was added because Microsoft has found a legal loophole allowing the deal with Novell. Microsoft didn't break the terms of GPLv2, but they're the bad guys for breaking the spirit of GPL.

This guy (allegedly technically) didn't break EULA (although he's the one that provided the correspondence, i guess Microsoft would be very quick to point the legal violation on its blog), but most certainly broke the spirit of EULA. Somehow, Microsoft is the bad guy here once again.

The end result - bad publicity for Microsoft, a lot of people suddenly aware of this guy's product (which is sold for some versions), most probably Microsoft won't go to the court (especially since the guy resides in UK), and most definitely the next EULA will have much more verbose clause regarding the limitation, alienating people along the way (anyone complaining that it takes weeks to read GPLv3? all i hear are complaints about Windows licenses and how they go on and on).

----------------------------------

So, what are your thoughts on this?

Comments

• Well, first of all, I can't decide whether this guy did break any contractual obligation he had either from EULA or elsewhere or not. There are so many open questions there, that only the courts in UK can give a definitive answer.
  As you said, he certainly broke the spirit in which Microsoft established the Express product line. (And spirit is a much more appropriate word than 'ethos', because breaking the spirit is not automatically a morally bad issue.)
  But this spirit actually has two sides: the one side is, how Microsoft thinks of it, as giving away a free but limited experience on developing software for Microsoft's platform. The other, and in my opinion more important side is, attracting and binding the mind-share of new generations of developers to the Microsoft platform.
  And it is this second side, which is actually nurtured by this plugin, especially as it is freely available for the same people that can freely use the Express versions.
  This two-sided spirit is at the core of the whole discussion. When Microsoft decided, they have to provide an answer to the more and more professional free IDEs like NetBeans and Eclipse, they only made a half-hearted step. Giving away crippleware does not attract alpha geeks nor create a community. So it was flawed business decision from the start, and the quarrel with this plugin developer just brings it to light.
  Is it wrong to make Microsoft the bad guy for their faulty decisions? I think not. Especially as long as they are inclined to repeat them (with more verbose EULA) rather than to correct them (by releasing uncrippled Express Versions).

  Posted by: rullrich on June 07, 2007 at 12:32 AM

• try to produce open source stuff for .Net platform? ahahahah.. nice try.. next time, the poor guy can try to use OpenJDK and Linux since the beginning.. then he will probably don't waste his and our time anymore...

  Posted by: felipegaucho on June 07, 2007 at 02:47 AM

• he didn't just break the "spirit" of the license, he broke the letter of the license.
  Of course he can likely defend himself by stating that he didn't write the plugin using the Express edition and therefore it's not him that's in violation but his users, but that would make him look bad so he instead plays the poor little man being bullied by the Big Evil Company, pathetic really.
  And he can do that with impunity in the full knowledge of the support of the slashdot kiddos and their faithful following.

  Posted by: jwenting on June 07, 2007 at 03:22 AM

• no felipe, he tried to reverse engineer his way around license restrictions and got caught.

  Posted by: jwenting on June 07, 2007 at 03:23 AM

• This is one of the funniest emails ever;

  
  From: Vicki Collins
  To: Jamie Cansdale
  CC: Akim Boukhelif;Lorna Williamson
  Date: Fri, 2 Mar 2007 20:11:43 +0000
  Subject: Recall: Microsoft Most Valuable Professional Award

  Vicki Collins (Brook Street) would like to recall the message,
  "Microsoft Most Valuable Professional Award".

  This is horrible, way to grow a community MS. The chain of emails really shows the difference between the open source community and the toxic ecosystem that MS is creating on their side. The world of people freely extending tools, and the world of lawyers trying to get you at every corner. Horrible stuff.

  Posted by: augusto on June 07, 2007 at 06:06 PM

• the vast majority of MVPs never have any problems at all.
  The vast majority of dealings with Microsoft are professional and friendly.
  But if you try to mess around with them they rightly protect their interests and strongly so. After all they're not a bunch of teenage kids sitting in their bedrooms hacking away on their computers like your average /. kiddo.

  Posted by: jwenting on June 07, 2007 at 10:25 PM

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons License.