"If you are using the Mozilla Mark(s) for the unaltered binaries you are distributing, you may not charge for that product. By not charging, we mean the Mozilla product must be without cost and its distribution [...] may not be [...] tied to purchasing a service"
IANAL, but Dell is free to charge for the installation, but then they need to call it the Arctic Bear Browser.
[1]: http://www.mozilla.org/en-US/foundation/trademarks/policy/
The issue is that, by using the binary, which contains a Mozilla-owned trademark, they become subject to Mozilla's trademark policy.
IANAL, and am curious: What binds Dell to adhere to Mozilla's trademark policy? They are not using the Firefox trademark in a way which is likely to cause confusion (assuming they are using the official binary) or to devalue the Firefox brand. (How) can a trademark-owner go about adding their own conditions to the use of a trademark, over and above those provided for by trademark law?
Couldn't you say the same for any service where you _actually_ distribute it as well? "I'm not distributing it, I'm simple charging for the service of easy installation".
(I'm also not AL, though...)
If someone can't argue based on the meaning of the words in a piece of text, what else can they argue about? The grammar? The spelling? Surely we _only_ want arguments based on semantics!
(this wouldn't apply to other laptops that come with preinstalled Ubuntu, for example, since there is no specific charge to add Firefox.)
Installing it on a computer somebody already owns isn't distribution, you can charge for hours there, but installing it on something in the factory is different.
My problem is the approach. It is quite common to purchase additional softwares like MS Office, while buying a computer. And generally, you are paying for the software, not for the installation service.
Mozilla is one of the most easy-to-download & setup software. If a person is not able to download Mozilla on her own, how can she sense the necessity to have a Mozilla Web Browser?