Hi Guy,

Too bad it could be soooo expensive to find out one way or the other.

While I too read it as implying/meaning/inferring that the runtime dlls are NOT to be distributed, 'modern' business practise - of which Microsoft is a supreme practitioner, I would say - is that 'if it ain't explicitly stated then it can be done'. Sadly.

cheers


>>>
>Looking at redist.txt the runtime dll's are not listed. Only the MSM containing them. Does that imply that I cannot redistribute the dll's but only the MSM's?<<
>
>I am not a lawyer. That said, the document you reference seems clear.
>
>The next question is... "OK, is it enforceable?"
>
>I don't mean to be smug. But there's no way to answer that question and know whetehr or not you'll be in court some day. It seems that most people who distribute runtimes outside of the MSM's are either (1) oblivious to the license, (2) don't think it's enforceable, or (3) just plain don't care. Are you worried about the MS police? If so, you should consult an attorney.
>
>Did I say I am not a lawyer?
>
>I can't imagine a scenario where MS will come down on anybody about a detail like that. Unless of course, you're installing those files on some other operating system. :) Even then, I don't think the risk of ending up in court is that great.
>
>Guy