8 ms·

That's not correct. You don't have to give your credit card details or even be logged in but you are still required to have any Visual Studio license. For hobby

by foepys 8mo ago

That's not correct. You don't have to give your credit card details or even be logged in but you are still required to have any Visual Studio license. For hobbyists and startups the VS Community license is enough but larger companies need a VS Professional license even for the VS Build Tools. How strict Microsoft is with enforcement of this license is another story.

dgxyz 8mo ago
[flagged]
- okanat 8mo ago
  Well, let's say this is the world view of all companies about open-source software. Then what happens. If people "tend to not give crap" about licenses, all the nice guarantees of GPL etc also disappear.
  - scotty79 8mo ago
    There are zero guarantees and commercial software uses GPLd software as parts of their products all the time. Licenses do not work and you shouldn't respect them whenever you can.
  - cies 8mo ago
    Very weird comparison. GPL was made in response to restrictive commercial licensing. Yes is uses the same legal document (a license): but is made in response! So is propriety seizes to exist, then it's not a problem GPL also seizes to exist. Also: it's quite obvious to me that IP-law nowadays too much. It may have been a good idea at first, but now it's a monster (and people seem to die because of it: Aaron Swartz and Suchir Balaji come to mind).
anankaie 8mo ago
You do not need a Professional or Enterprise license to use the Visual Studio Build Tools: > Previously, if the application you were developing was not OSS, installing VSBT was permitted only if you had a valid Visual Studio license (e.g., Visual Studio Community or higher). From (https://devblogs.microsoft.com/cppblog/updates-to-visual-studio-build-tools-license-for-c-and-cpp-open-source-projects/ https://devblogs.microsoft.com/cppblog/updates-to-visual-stu...). For OSS, you do not even need a Community License anymore.
- dwattttt 8mo ago
  This does not apply if you're developing closed source: > if you and your team need to compile and develop proprietary C++ code with Visual Studio, a Visual Studio license will still be required.
  - irishcoffee 8mo ago
    Is the fancy text editor compiling, or the toolchain? I don’t need visual to write, read, compile, or link any code using the toolchain.
  - quietbritishjim 8mo ago
    That just confirms the parent comment's point. If you're just using the build tools directly, you're fine. If need to develop "with Visual Studio" i.e. the IDE, not just the command line tools, then you need the paid license.
    - dwattttt 7mo ago
      It's actually not. It's complicated, but they're explicitly allowing Build Tools to be used to compile open source dependencies of closed source projects that do not need the MSVC toolchain for proprietary components. It's why the example they give in the article is a Node.js application with native open source dependencies (e.g. sqlite3). EDIT: it's clearer when read in context of the opening paragraph: > Visual Studio Build Tools (VSBT) can now be used for compiling open-source C++ dependencies from source without requiring a Visual Studio license, even when you are working for an enterprise on a commercial or closed-source project.
      - quietbritishjim 7mo ago
        Ok that does sound a bit different.
        dwattttt 7mo ago
        I wish the post was clearer (though I'm not sure what that looks like). I've made the same mistake interpreting it, then had to go back and reread it a few times.
qingcharles 8mo ago
And a VS license isn't too expensive if you really want to buy one. Stack Social have legit licenses discounted to $15: https://www.stacksocial.com/sales/microsoft-visual-studio-professional-2022-3 https://www.stacksocial.com/sales/microsoft-visual-studio-pr...
- eps 8mo ago
  This definetly looks like some sort of scam. Like a volume key license being resold against EULA or some such.
  - aleph_minus_one 8mo ago
    > Like a volume key license being resold against EULA or some such. At least in the EU, this is legal.
    - eps 8mo ago
      Through which means?
      - aleph_minus_one 8mo ago
        I can only provide articles that are in German: An article about court decision by the EuGH from 2012: https://www.heise.de/hintergrund/EuGH-Gebrauchte-Softwarelizenzen-duerfen-weiterverkauft-werden-1631066.html https://www.heise.de/hintergrund/EuGH-Gebrauchte-Softwareliz... Another court decision from the BGH (the highest German civil court) from 2014 that builds on this EuGH decision: https://www.heise.de/news/BGH-begruendet-Rechtmaessigkeit-des-Gebrauchtsoftware-Handels-2104055.html https://www.heise.de/news/BGH-begruendet-Rechtmaessigkeit-de...

by foepys 8mo ago

dgxyz 8mo ago

[flagged]

okanat 8mo ago
Well, let's say this is the world view of all companies about open-source software. Then what happens. If people "tend to not give crap" about licenses, all the nice guarantees of GPL etc also disappear.
- scotty79 8mo ago
  There are zero guarantees and commercial software uses GPLd software as parts of their products all the time. Licenses do not work and you shouldn't respect them whenever you can.
- cies 8mo ago
  Very weird comparison. GPL was made in response to restrictive commercial licensing. Yes is uses the same legal document (a license): but is made in response! So is propriety seizes to exist, then it's not a problem GPL also seizes to exist. Also: it's quite obvious to me that IP-law nowadays too much. It may have been a good idea at first, but now it's a monster (and people seem to die because of it: Aaron Swartz and Suchir Balaji come to mind).

anankaie 8mo ago

You do not need a Professional or Enterprise license to use the Visual Studio Build Tools: > Previously, if the application you were developing was not OSS, installing VSBT was permitted only if you had a valid Visual Studio license (e.g., Visual Studio Community or higher). From (https://devblogs.microsoft.com/cppblog/updates-to-visual-studio-build-tools-license-for-c-and-cpp-open-source-projects/ https://devblogs.microsoft.com/cppblog/updates-to-visual-stu...). For OSS, you do not even need a Community License anymore.

dwattttt 8mo ago
This does not apply if you're developing closed source: > if you and your team need to compile and develop proprietary C++ code with Visual Studio, a Visual Studio license will still be required.
- irishcoffee 8mo ago
  Is the fancy text editor compiling, or the toolchain? I don’t need visual to write, read, compile, or link any code using the toolchain.
- quietbritishjim 8mo ago
  That just confirms the parent comment's point. If you're just using the build tools directly, you're fine. If need to develop "with Visual Studio" i.e. the IDE, not just the command line tools, then you need the paid license.
  - dwattttt 7mo ago
    It's actually not. It's complicated, but they're explicitly allowing Build Tools to be used to compile open source dependencies of closed source projects that do not need the MSVC toolchain for proprietary components. It's why the example they give in the article is a Node.js application with native open source dependencies (e.g. sqlite3). EDIT: it's clearer when read in context of the opening paragraph: > Visual Studio Build Tools (VSBT) can now be used for compiling open-source C++ dependencies from source without requiring a Visual Studio license, even when you are working for an enterprise on a commercial or closed-source project.
    - quietbritishjim 7mo ago
      Ok that does sound a bit different.
      - dwattttt 7mo ago
        I wish the post was clearer (though I'm not sure what that looks like). I've made the same mistake interpreting it, then had to go back and reread it a few times.

qingcharles 8mo ago

And a VS license isn't too expensive if you really want to buy one. Stack Social have legit licenses discounted to $15: https://www.stacksocial.com/sales/microsoft-visual-studio-professional-2022-3 https://www.stacksocial.com/sales/microsoft-visual-studio-pr...

eps 8mo ago
This definetly looks like some sort of scam. Like a volume key license being resold against EULA or some such.
- aleph_minus_one 8mo ago
  > Like a volume key license being resold against EULA or some such. At least in the EU, this is legal.
  - eps 8mo ago
    Through which means?
    - aleph_minus_one 8mo ago
      I can only provide articles that are in German: An article about court decision by the EuGH from 2012: https://www.heise.de/hintergrund/EuGH-Gebrauchte-Softwarelizenzen-duerfen-weiterverkauft-werden-1631066.html https://www.heise.de/hintergrund/EuGH-Gebrauchte-Softwareliz... Another court decision from the BGH (the highest German civil court) from 2014 that builds on this EuGH decision: https://www.heise.de/news/BGH-begruendet-Rechtmaessigkeit-des-Gebrauchtsoftware-Handels-2104055.html https://www.heise.de/news/BGH-begruendet-Rechtmaessigkeit-de...