Rubberduck: MSDN function descriptions need to be removed from xmldoc comments.

[comintern]

I believe these probably entered the code-base via the RawInput code (haven't bothered to verify that yet), but they may actually violate the MSDN terms of service if the descriptions are copied verbatim (my emphasis):

Personal and Non-Commercial Use Limitation

Unless otherwise specified, the Services are for your personal and non-commercial use. _You may not modify, copy, distribute, transmit, display, perform, reproduce, publish, license, create derivative works from, transfer, or sell any information, software, products or services obtained from the Services._

It would probably be a good idea to delete these as they are encountered. A good alternative would be to replace them with the MSDN hyperlink above the declaration, i.e.:

//https://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/windows/desktop/dd373640(v=vs.85).aspx
[DllImport("user32.dll")]
public static extern IntPtr SetWinEventHook(uint eventMin, uint eventMax, IntPtr hmodWinEventProc, ...

[retailcoder]

The only thing is that MSDN links, especially for old COM & VBA/VB6 stuff, tend to disappear without warning and/or redirect, which makes them quite prone to rotting. I think we should be fine with proper XML-doc and an attribution link to MSDN. What's the difference between that and copying MSDN content with attribution in a Stack Overflow answer?

[retailcoder]

OTOH the last thing I want is getting Rubberduck Microsoft's attention for the wrong reasons, so yeah, we should probably just reword them and link to MSDN.

[ThunderFrame]

Or, we could just pre-empt the MSDN documentation and add a bunch of ? characters in place of important words, change working code examples to jibberish that doesn't compile, and add URLs that result in a 404.

[PeterMTaylor]

A 404 page on MSDN side or our RD side?

[ThunderFrame]

@PeterMTaylor - That was a barbed comment thrown sarcastically in Microsoft's direction. Many of their older documents have been through multiple character encodings, multiple regex replacements and numerous transformations. The URL scheme for KB articles alone, has changed form too many times.

[PeterMTaylor]

Thanks @ThunderFrame for clarification and perspective. I had not considered this if I was Indy Jones looking at the fate of Atlantis so to speak...

[rubberduck203]

@comintern are you concerned that we have text in the code base that falls under that license, or code? I'd be willing to argue fair use of text for the reasons already mentioned, but code... having code in the project that we don't have a license to is problematic.