Arild Fines wrote:
> SCC is now part of the Visual Studio SDK, which allows open sourcing
> products developed with it. See
> http://blogs.msdn.com/dotnetinterop/archive/2006/01/27/517578.aspx for more
OK. I went and downloaded the new SDK (Visual Studio 2005 SDK - April
2006 V2 RTM) so I could look at the new license. This was on the off
chance that they did something nice, like making the new terms
explicitly supersede the old terms so that I'd be free again.
The download agreement that I had to accept to download it was titled
"Visual Studio Industry Partner Distribution Agreement". That's "VSIP",
the old name for the program. Its also dated July 2003. After reading
it, it sure looks identical to the old agreement. Section 2.b.vii has
the exact same wording as on the page you linked.
There's a separate EULA inside the SDK. Its is titled "MICROSOFT
SOFTWARE LICENSE TERMS VISUAL STUDIO SOFTWARE DEVELOPMENT KIT". It is
very different, and does appear to allow sharing of sources under some
very restricted circumstances. I believe it was crafted in an attempt to
allow source sharing, but not in concert with GPL sources. It has its
own "viral" component, that requires you to be at least as restrictive
with anyone you share with as Microsoft was to you.
For anyone trying to operate under this, its unclear to me if this is
compatible with the licenses on the subversion API, as well as the
libraries that it requires like Neon, Expat, OpenSSL, etc. Neon is LGPL,
so you are probably hosed right there.
But it gets worse: Even if this is OK, you still have to agree with that
old "agreement" before you downloaded it. That has different, and in
some cases inconsistent clauses, including one that says:
This Agreement constitutes the entire agreement between the parties
with respect to the subject matter hereof and supersedes all prior
and contemporaneous agreements or communications. It shall not be
modified except by a written agreement dated subsequent to the date
of this Agreement and signed on behalf of You and Us by respective
duly authorized representatives.
The newer licensing agreement has no such clause (or attached date), so
I'm guessing that the earlier (more restrictive one) takes precidence.
It would take an "IP" lawyer (and perhaps a court ruling) to straighten
out for sure though.
Unless this is a recent situation, I'd say the blogger you linked is
full of (*insert icky substance of your choice here*).
T.E.D. Work - mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org
Home - mailto:email@example.com (Yahoo: Ted_Dennison)
Homepage - http://www.telepath.com/~dennison/Ted/TED.html
To unsubscribe, e-mail: firstname.lastname@example.org
For additional commands, e-mail: email@example.com
Received on Wed Jul 19 15:13:12 2006