[gbear605]

This is pretty different from that. It’s not just that they modified Windows, it’s that they provided a cracked version of the iso. If they just provided the tools to do it, it’d be one thing (and that probably wouldn’t have been attached by Microsoft). But given the evidence, this is perfectly reasonable for Microsoft.

[smolder]

Why are others saying it wasn't cracked and didn't disable activation? Cracked implies copy protection or licensing measures were circumvented.

[wvenable]

Why does it matter? No company is going to do nothing if someone else distributes a modified versions of their software -- regardless of the modification. The fact that it's cracked or not is inconsequential to the discussion.

[pbhjpbhj]

You still have a point, but isn't what you declaim precisely what companies like RedHat, Canonical, etc., do. Mozilla, and Google too, to some extent.

[wvenable]

Free software licenses are specifically designed to allow distribution -- the exception that proves the rule. But even so, none of the companies listed will allow you to distribute modified binaries under their exact product names. Hence CentOS, Iceweasle, etc. Despite being open source and free software, these companies still want to define for themselves what "Firefox" and "Redhat" actually are.