CTP, License and Source Code

Jan 16, 2008 at 1:24 PM
Hi,

The name of the latest release (Sandcastle January 2008) doesn't indicate whether it's a community technology preview (CTP). Are you considering it to be the first actual RTW or is it still a CTP?

Also, the license that appears on the License page is different than the license that's presented by the installer. Do they both apply to different areas of the distribution or does one apply over the other? (IIRC, the installer's license still indicates that the release is a CTP.)

And last, but not least, are there any plans to release the source code? If so, as a separate download or will Team Server and the Source Code page be used for distribution?

BTW, thanks for starting this project on CodePlex :)

- Dave
Coordinator
Jan 17, 2008 at 4:03 AM
We are no longer in the CTP mode! I will make a fix to the installed to reflect the new license. Yes we are officially RTW in Codeplex. I will try to update the license with a new version by February 1st week. Cheers.

Anand..
Jan 17, 2008 at 7:45 AM
The licence in the installer still says:

MICROSOFT PRE-RELEASE SOFTWARE LICENSE TERMS
MICROSOFT MANAGED REFERENCE DOCUMENTATION COMPILERS CODE NAMED "SANDCASTLE" CTP

- Chris D-W
Jan 17, 2008 at 8:57 AM
Hi Anand,

Thanks for the reply, that's good news. I have some follow-ups though:

  • Should we still expect monthly deployments?
  • What features, if any, would you consider to be finalized? Knowing this will help me to finalize DocProject features that rely directly on Sandcastle. I assume that the overall architecture isn't going to change much anymore (e.g., presentations that have a project-like encapsulation consisting of configuration files, transformations and content items), but what about tools such as ChmBuilder and MRefBuilder? Do you expect to deploy new builds of these tools or will I have to work around limitations on my own? And do you expect the transformations to change much?
  • The CodePlex license seems to indicate that we can "[prepare and distribute] derivative works". Is this the license that you're going to keep? If so, I'm seriously considering building DocProject as a stand-alone install that ships with only the Sandcastle components that it needs, while asking end-users to agree to Microsoft's license and, of course, giving Microsoft credit for the Sandcastle components. Is this something that, legally speaking, would be acceptable?

Thanks,
Dave
Coordinator
Jan 17, 2008 at 3:10 PM


chrisdw wrote:
The licence in the installer still says:

MICROSOFT PRE-RELEASE SOFTWARE LICENSE TERMS
MICROSOFT MANAGED REFERENCE DOCUMENTATION COMPILERS CODE NAMED "SANDCASTLE" CTP

- Chris D-W


Chris - I am working with Microsoft legal team so that we can replace the CTP license in the installer with the license terms in codeplex. I should have this done for our February release.

Anand..
Coordinator
Jan 17, 2008 at 3:14 PM


davedev wrote:
Hi Anand,

Thanks for the reply, that's good news. I have some follow-ups though:

  • Should we still expect monthly deployments?
  • What features, if any, would you consider to be finalized? Knowing this will help me to finalize DocProject features that rely directly on Sandcastle. I assume that the overall architecture isn't going to change much anymore (e.g., presentations that have a project-like encapsulation consisting of configuration files, transformations and content items), but what about tools such as ChmBuilder and MRefBuilder? Do you expect to deploy new builds of these tools or will I have to work around limitations on my own? And do you expect the transformations to change much?
  • The CodePlex license seems to indicate that we can "[prepare and distribute] derivative works". Is this the license that you're going to keep? If so, I'm seriously considering building DocProject as a stand-alone install that ships with only the Sandcastle components that it needs, while asking end-users to agree to Microsoft's license and, of course, giving Microsoft credit for the Sandcastle components. Is this something that, legally speaking, would be acceptable?

Thanks,
Dave


Hi Dave,
  • Yes I plan on releasing monthly
  • All of the features have been finalized. I do expect changes mainly to VS 2005 and/or Hana presentation styles. If you can email your limitation and add the features you need to "Issue Tracker" area I will be happy to address them.
  • I believe yes is the naser for the license. I am working with our legal team and will provide a response.

Anand..
Jan 17, 2008 at 3:29 PM
Thanks Anand.

I already submitted a couple of ChmBuilder limitations via the Issue Tracker. I hope that's OK :) If you prefer email I can certainly do that instead.

- Dave