OSR's ntfsd List: Observations on the WDK 6000 kit EULA

Message 1 of 3

13 Nov 06 12:44

Tony Mason

xxxxxx@osr.com

Join Date:

Posts To This List: 2076

List Moderator

Observations on the WDK 6000 kit EULA

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

Message 2 of 3

13 Nov 06 13:10

ntfsd member 13199

xxxxxx@positivenetworks.net

Join Date:

Posts To This List: 46

Re: Observations on the WDK 6000 kit EULA

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 <...excess quoted lines suppressed...>

Message 3 of 3

14 Nov 06 03:05

Johan Marien

xxxxxx@winse.microsoft.com

Join Date: 13 Sep 2006

Posts To This List: 1

Re: Observations on the WDK 6000 kit EULA

Let me start by saying that I'm also not a lawyer - but I happen to know the ones that crafted the EULA :-) 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" <xxxxx@positivenetworks.net> wrote in message news:70378@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 <...excess quoted lines suppressed...>

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads You may not post replies You may not post attachments	You must login to OSR Online AND be a member of the ntfsd list to be able to post.

All times are GMT -5. The time now is 13:44.