First off, I just got word that the letter from Jamie to MS was actually not written (or, I suppose) signed by him. Thanks to Jonathan for pointing out the error on my blog -- I read that letter wrong, and I'm sorry about that. I withdraw my comments about that issue (post edited on my blog). But even though he didn't write that letter, I think that the bad faith argument still stands if you look at his correspondence with MS on February 26th.
It's just too bad that Jamie never felt the need to post my reply to his original response on his blog (see: Jamie Quells Dissent...), or I could have been set straight on this one issue earlier.
Has anyone considered that maybe Jamie is in violation of the GPL?
I quote Section 2b) of the GPL:
You must cause any work that you distribute or publish, that in whole or in part contains or is derived from the Program or any part thereof, to be licensed as a whole at no charge to all third parties under the terms of this License.
It clearly says _all_ third parties. Not just certain *classes* of users. From his website:
An enterprise licence is required if you wish to make TestDriven.NET available for deployment on multiple machines (i.e. if you're distributing the TestDriven.NET installer from a network share).
I thoroughly believe him when he said that he started TestDriven.NET as a hobby. But later on, he decided to make money off of it. That's his prerogative, but if he's going to do so, he should play by the rules.