[nonchalance]

The problem is that Mozilla's policy applies to distribution but not necessarily to installation. Since this is a legal issue, the details are very important.

In this case, the process of ensuring that a functioning version of Firefox resides on the machine involves:

1. Transferring the Firefox software to the machine

2. Explicitly preparing the machine so that the Firefox software can be run (in this case, installing Firefox)

The Policy only applies to the first item. No part of the policy refers to the second action, and it's fair game for Dell to charge a fee for the labor associated with installing the software (they cannot, of course, charge a fee for the part of the process where the software is distributed to the machine).

If this sounds like nitpicking, welcome to the world of law

[thedufer]

I would be willing to bet that they aren't running an installer on each person's machine, though. If they created multiple disk images - one with FF, one without - and are charging to use the one with FF, then it looks like they're charging for distribution.

[nonchalance]

If they really did create two sets of disk images based on presence of Firefox, Dell could argue that the price is not for the software but for other differences between the disk images.

Note that I'm not arguing about the spirit of the actions, but merely about whether Mozilla actually has a case here

[tcheard]

Not if they are selling the service as a "Mozilla Firefox Web Browser Installation Service"

[FireBeyond]

Does one have to physically run an executable and click through the process to have “installed” software? The software is distributed in a different state to the installed state.

[dkuntz2]

There's also a prohibition against fees "tied to subscribing to or purchasing a service". This seems pretty much like a service being purchased...

I accept that the law can be entirely arbitrary and based on tiny technicalities, but it seems like Dell's in the wrong here to me.