Is distributing the CLR DLLs against the license? RRS feed

  • Question

  • Hi,

    I have a .NET 2.0 application and I would like to distribute it to users without requiring them to install the .NET framework. I came across a product that does just this:

    "Not requiring the .NET Framework to be installed.  By packaging the application and linking the .NET framework with Thinstall, no installation of the .NET framework is required. The application runs without modifying the host computer."

    I'd like to try to accomplish the same thing so the question is this: Is distributing the CLR DLLs (like  mscoree.dll, mscorwks.dll, etc) along with the application to avoid requiring a .NET framework installation, against the .NET framework license ?

    Tuesday, October 3, 2006 1:34 AM


  • It is not a simple matter of just copying the right files to get a .NET app to run.  There is a lot more to it including registry entries and pre-defined paths.  Just redistribute the framework.  Anybody who runs Windows Update or installs the latest version of just about any graphics card or even runs Office will have .NET installed anyway.  It shouldn't be a big deal so there is no benefit in trying to avoid it.  Besides they only have to install the framework once.  And, in answer to your question, you can not legally distribute the binaries.  You can only distribute the setup program for installing the framework.

    Michael Taylor - 10/3/06

    Tuesday, October 3, 2006 9:05 PM