Observations on the WDK 6000 kit EULA

NTFSD
1

Now that the WDK kit has been completed I’ve been looking through it and
thought I’d note for the record that you should be very careful before
using samples from the latest kit. My reading of the EULA is that only
samples explicitly listed in the file samples.txt can be redistributed
in source form:

“Sample Code. You may modify, copy, and distribute the source and
object code form of code listed in the SAMPLES.TXT file. You may
modify, copy and distribute only the object code form of other sample
code that is not listed in the SAMPLES.TXT file.”

(Note that getting this license is itself a trick - the only time it
appears to be displayed is during installation. There is no EULA file
that I could find on the DVD or in the installation directory.)

Since there is no samples.txt file my conclusion is that NONE of the
examples in the WDK are redistributable in source code format (I care
about such things because I can rely upon the old IFS Kit license and
samples for class, but this means I can’t use source code samples from
the current WDK because it *might* violate the EULA, and I try very hard
not to step on some mighty big toes attached to feet that can crush on a
whim.)

Less clear to me was what object code you can redistribute. The line
prior to the “Sample Code” line says:

“REDIST.TXT Files. You may copy and distribute the object code form of
code listed in REDIST.TXT files.”

I did finally find that file - it is on the WDK distribution DVD but
isn’t installed with the full distribution kit (we need to save the 5k
of space it represents. Darn text files are so space wasting…) The
file doesn’t list any of the binaries built by the WDK itself. Thus,
one (conservative) interpretation is that the new license does not allow
distribution of any of the samples (or code derived from the samples) in
binary or source code form.

Truly a masterful part of the license is section four that prohibits
(amongst other things):

“You may not: … work around any technical limitations in the
software.”

Which I guess means you can’t fix any bugs that you find (since those
ARE technical limitations.) Of course the next line doesn’t allow you
to use the debugger with the code anyway (unless explicitly allowed by
applicable law.)

Of course, this is the danger with reading a EULA - they are written by
lawyers without any pragmatic experience in using the software to which
the license applies. That level of ambiguity provides a potential club
over everyone’s head (so they ignore it mostly and enforce it when you
piss them off. But that may just me being cynical as well.)

Fair warning: I am not a lawyer and this is not a legal opinion. For
your own safety and the safety of your company, I would suggest that you
work with your own lawyers to determine the real meaning and impact of
the Microsoft EULA for the WDK. I merely draw your attention to its
nuances and details so that later if you DO step on Microsoft’s toes,
you can’t claim ignorance. :wink:

Tony

Tony Mason
Consulting Partner
OSR Open Systems Resources, Inc.
http://www.osr.com

2

Thanks for posting this, Tony. Your analysis seems reasonable to me.
It really does sound like someone from the “eula department” wrote
this with no reference to the intended use of the samples. But, since
the kit has shipped, this is the license we get.

Anyway, I hadn’t bothered to read the EULA in a while, but I guess I
should have after the stuff that went on a few weeks ago re: the
Vista license itself.

-sd
(also not a lawyer)

On Nov 13, 2006, at 11:43 AM, Tony Mason wrote:

Now that the WDK kit has been completed I’ve been looking through
it and
thought I’d note for the record that you should be very careful before
using samples from the latest kit. My reading of the EULA is that
only
samples explicitly listed in the file samples.txt can be redistributed
in source form:

“Sample Code. You may modify, copy, and distribute the source and
object code form of code listed in the SAMPLES.TXT file. You may
modify, copy and distribute only the object code form of other sample
code that is not listed in the SAMPLES.TXT file.”

(Note that getting this license is itself a trick - the only time it
appears to be displayed is during installation. There is no EULA file
that I could find on the DVD or in the installation directory.)

Since there is no samples.txt file my conclusion is that NONE of the
examples in the WDK are redistributable in source code format (I care
about such things because I can rely upon the old IFS Kit license and
samples for class, but this means I can’t use source code samples from
the current WDK because it *might* violate the EULA, and I try very
hard
not to step on some mighty big toes attached to feet that can crush
on a
whim.)

Less clear to me was what object code you can redistribute. The line
prior to the “Sample Code” line says:

“REDIST.TXT Files. You may copy and distribute the object code
form of
code listed in REDIST.TXT files.”

I did finally find that file - it is on the WDK distribution DVD but
isn’t installed with the full distribution kit (we need to save the 5k
of space it represents. Darn text files are so space wasting…) The
file doesn’t list any of the binaries built by the WDK itself. Thus,
one (conservative) interpretation is that the new license does not
allow
distribution of any of the samples (or code derived from the
samples) in
binary or source code form.

Truly a masterful part of the license is section four that prohibits
(amongst other things):

“You may not: … work around any technical limitations in the
software.”

Which I guess means you can’t fix any bugs that you find (since those
ARE technical limitations.) Of course the next line doesn’t allow you
to use the debugger with the code anyway (unless explicitly allowed by
applicable law.)

Of course, this is the danger with reading a EULA - they are
written by
lawyers without any pragmatic experience in using the software to
which
the license applies. That level of ambiguity provides a potential
club
over everyone’s head (so they ignore it mostly and enforce it when you
piss them off. But that may just me being cynical as well.)

Fair warning: I am not a lawyer and this is not a legal opinion. For
your own safety and the safety of your company, I would suggest
that you
work with your own lawyers to determine the real meaning and impact of
the Microsoft EULA for the WDK. I merely draw your attention to its
nuances and details so that later if you DO step on Microsoft’s toes,
you can’t claim ignorance. :wink:

Tony

Tony Mason
Consulting Partner
OSR Open Systems Resources, Inc.
http://www.osr.com

Questions? First check the IFS FAQ at https://www.osronline.com/
article.cfm?id=17

You are currently subscribed to ntfsd as: unknown lmsubst tag
argument: ‘’
To unsubscribe send a blank email to xxxxx@lists.osr.com

3

Let me start by saying that I’m also not a lawyer - but I happen to know the
ones that crafted the EULA :slight_smile:

  1. Wrt samples, the Win2K3 SP1 DDK EULA did not allow for the
    re-distribution of sample code in source
    form which poses a problem for anyone wanting to use/modify and distribute
    sample source code for educational
    purposes (see sections 2.1.(a) and 3.(a).(i)).
    The new language around samples should allow for distribution of samples in
    source code form if they are explicitly
    listed in the samples.txt file. (similar to the EULA used for KMDF 1.0). The
    goal was to lay the groundwork for various
    technology groups at MSFT to identify samples that can be freely distributed
    in source form. At this point, as you noted, the
    list is empty. In the Longhorn Server timeframe, we expect there to be a
    select set of samples listed in samples.txt.
    If you desire a specific sample(s) (e.g. the ones in the IFS kit) to be
    added to the list, send us email listing which samples
    you’d like to see included and we’ll take your request to the appropriate
    technology team.

  2. As in the Win2K3 SP1 DDK, a copy of the EULA can be found in the \common
    folder of the installation image - named license.rtf.
    I recognize that this is not the most obvious location - even though it is
    referenced in the installation notes. We’ll address this in the Longhorn
    Server timeframe. E.g. relocating the file to the root folder of
    installation image, and copying the license, samples.txt and redist.txt
    files to the machine as part of installation.

  3. The REDIST.TXT file grants redistribution rights of binaries such as
    deployment tools or runtime components such as the KMDF and UMDF
    coinstallers used to provide runtime support on pre-Vista platforms. As for
    sample object code, the Sample Code clause of the license does permit
    distribution.

  4. As for the “work around any technical limitations in the software”…
    technical limitations was explained to us as product key based license
    restrictions or activation timebomb etc. I’ll see what we can do to further
    clarify this…

Hope #1, 3 and 4 helps clarify somewhat, and we’ll get #2 on the bug list
for Server. As always, thanks for the feedback.

“Steve Dispensa” wrote in message
news:xxxxx@ntfsd…
> Thanks for posting this, Tony. Your analysis seems reasonable to me. It
> really does sound like someone from the “eula department” wrote this with
> no reference to the intended use of the samples. But, since the kit has
> shipped, this is the license we get.
>
> Anyway, I hadn’t bothered to read the EULA in a while, but I guess I
> should have after the stuff that went on a few weeks ago re: the Vista
> license itself.
>
> -sd
> (also not a lawyer)
>
> On Nov 13, 2006, at 11:43 AM, Tony Mason wrote:
>
>> Now that the WDK kit has been completed I’ve been looking through it and
>> thought I’d note for the record that you should be very careful before
>> using samples from the latest kit. My reading of the EULA is that only
>> samples explicitly listed in the file samples.txt can be redistributed
>> in source form:
>>
>> “Sample Code. You may modify, copy, and distribute the source and
>> object code form of code listed in the SAMPLES.TXT file. You may
>> modify, copy and distribute only the object code form of other sample
>> code that is not listed in the SAMPLES.TXT file.”
>>
>> (Note that getting this license is itself a trick - the only time it
>> appears to be displayed is during installation. There is no EULA file
>> that I could find on the DVD or in the installation directory.)
>>
>> Since there is no samples.txt file my conclusion is that NONE of the
>> examples in the WDK are redistributable in source code format (I care
>> about such things because I can rely upon the old IFS Kit license and
>> samples for class, but this means I can’t use source code samples from
>> the current WDK because it might violate the EULA, and I try very hard
>> not to step on some mighty big toes attached to feet that can crush on a
>> whim.)
>>
>> Less clear to me was what object code you can redistribute. The line
>> prior to the “Sample Code” line says:
>>
>> “REDIST.TXT Files. You may copy and distribute the object code form of
>> code listed in REDIST.TXT files.”
>>
>> I did finally find that file - it is on the WDK distribution DVD but
>> isn’t installed with the full distribution kit (we need to save the 5k
>> of space it represents. Darn text files are so space wasting…) The
>> file doesn’t list any of the binaries built by the WDK itself. Thus,
>> one (conservative) interpretation is that the new license does not allow
>> distribution of any of the samples (or code derived from the samples) in
>> binary or source code form.
>>
>> Truly a masterful part of the license is section four that prohibits
>> (amongst other things):
>>
>> “You may not: … work around any technical limitations in the
>> software.”
>>
>> Which I guess means you can’t fix any bugs that you find (since those
>> ARE technical limitations.) Of course the next line doesn’t allow you
>> to use the debugger with the code anyway (unless explicitly allowed by
>> applicable law.)
>>
>> Of course, this is the danger with reading a EULA - they are written by
>> lawyers without any pragmatic experience in using the software to which
>> the license applies. That level of ambiguity provides a potential club
>> over everyone’s head (so they ignore it mostly and enforce it when you
>> piss them off. But that may just me being cynical as well.)
>>
>> Fair warning: I am not a lawyer and this is not a legal opinion. For
>> your own safety and the safety of your company, I would suggest that you
>> work with your own lawyers to determine the real meaning and impact of
>> the Microsoft EULA for the WDK. I merely draw your attention to its
>> nuances and details so that later if you DO step on Microsoft’s toes,
>> you can’t claim ignorance. :wink:
>>
>> Tony
>>
>> Tony Mason
>> Consulting Partner
>> OSR Open Systems Resources, Inc.
>> http://www.osr.com
>>
>>
>> —
>> Questions? First check the IFS FAQ at https://www.osronline.com/
>> article.cfm?id=17
>>
>> You are currently subscribed to ntfsd as: unknown lmsubst tag argument:
>> ‘’
>> To unsubscribe send a blank email to xxxxx@lists.osr.com
>
>