> I can understand that, but only to a certain point. What's the difference > between that, what Gerald is doing, and me charging customers to upgrade > their Internet Explorer which is also a free download? > Its a question of charging for IE, or the actual work you do. You are charging for a service and not a product. I am sure if you started publicly distributing IE with your own enhancements on a CD at $50 a time plus shipping Old Bill G would be after you too.
If it is packaged with other products, it is very legal to do it. I'm not sure if the various companies actually license is M$ or it is *just allowed*, but there are MANY windows packages that come bundled with Internet Explorer and they tell you must have at least that version # running in order to run their product.
Again, Mr. Big is ahead of everyone in the marketing game. What a scam, what a way to be sure your product is on everyone's desk, allow companies to freely distribute it along with there's.
Yes, this is slightly different than just packaging a preconfigured version, but not a whole lot different. These distributed copies are customized to have the distributing company's name on the title line.
So is there a true difference between redistribution with a value added service vs. a value added product? Interesting legal question :)
Jale