I remember I read the EULA the first time I started to installed it ('96?). It
had a clause that
read something along the lines "This is price free now. But if we ever
introduce a charge-for
version of IE, the price free status of this will cease - you'll have to pay us
to continue using
it." I pressed "Decline".
Of course after the Netscape case it was unlikely that they would ever invoke
that clause.
James Campbell
On 17 May 2007 at 10:30, Alan Cox wrote:
> On Thu, 17 May 2007 07:47:03 +0800
> John Summerfield <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > Alan Cox wrote:
> > > On Wed, 16 May 2007 09:18:42 -0400
> > > "Evans, Kevin R" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > >
> > >> I understand it only too well, but it isn't Microsoft's business model.
> > >
> > > How much did you pay for your copy of Internet Explorer when it was
> > > released as a download,or MS Word viewer, or ...
> >
> > Like webexplorer on OS/2 some years ago, IE is paid for in the Windows
> > charge. It's also the maintenance tool for Windows.
>
> No - when IE was first introduced it was a free(price) download and it was
> not a planned part of that particular windows release.
>
> As to gigs - Bill doesn't do gigs that is true, but Ballmer seems to do
> quite a show ;)
>
> Alan
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> For LINUX-390 subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
> send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the message: INFO LINUX-390 or visit
> http://www.marist.edu/htbin/wlvindex?LINUX-390
----------------------------------------------------------------------
For LINUX-390 subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the message: INFO LINUX-390 or visit
http://www.marist.edu/htbin/wlvindex?LINUX-390
