Visual Studio Community 2026 §8(b)(ii) — VC++ Redistributable in an AGPL installer

Hi Di Ts,

Thanks for such a well-researched question. It’s clear you’ve read the license carefully and want to do this the right way, which is more than most projects do before release.

I’ll be upfront: I’m a community member, not Microsoft, so this isn’t a licensing determination. What I can do is show you what the license text and the official documentation actually say. Questions 1, 4 and 5 can be answered reasonably well from those sources. Questions 2 and 3 can’t be settled from the license text or public documentation; they need an official answer from Microsoft. I’ll point you to where to ask at the end.

1) Can you bundle the unmodified VC++ Redistributable as an individual?

The license text supports it, subject to the distribution requirements.

• The Individual License clause allows an individual working on their own applications to use the software for those applications, whether to sell them or for any other purpose.
• The Distributable Code section allows you to distribute the object code of anything on the Distributable List (https://aka.ms/vs/18/redistribution).
• That list (Visual Studio 2026 redistribution page) includes the VC\redist folder, unmodified, distributed with your program. It also states that the same VC++ Redistributable package from the official download pages may be redistributed only by licensed Visual Studio users, under the Visual Studio license terms.

The Distribution Requirements in that section apply to anything you distribute. You must:

• add significant primary functionality to it in your application;
• require distributors and external end users to agree to terms that protect the Distributable Code “at least as much as these license terms” (this is the clause you’re asking about);
• indemnify Microsoft against claims related to your application, except claims based solely on the Distributable Code.

2 and 3) Is a separate pre-install acceptance enough? What about downstream distributors?

This is where the license stops giving clear answers. It states what must be achieved: distributors and external end users must agree to protective terms. It does not prescribe a mechanism, such as a click-through screen, an accompanying file, or acceptance before download.

There is also a Third Party Distribution clause that lets you permit distributors of your application to copy and distribute the Distributable Code as part of it, and requirement (ii) applies to them too. Whether your pre-install consent screen is enough for end users, and whether accompanying terms are enough for people who only re-host your installer without running it, are exactly the points I can’t answer from the text. Only Microsoft can give you a reliable answer here.

4) Can the Microsoft terms stay separate from your AGPL-3.0-only license?

The license’s Distribution Restrictions prohibit modifying or distributing the source code of any Distributable Code in a way that makes it subject to an “Excluded License”. The license defines that as one requiring, as a condition of use, modification or distribution, that code be disclosed in source form or that others may modify it.

Your plan is to ship the unmodified binary under Microsoft’s own terms, kept separate from your AGPL-licensed code. That doesn’t appear to conflict with the wording of this restriction.

The other direction, whether the AGPL itself allows your installer to bundle a proprietary runtime under separate terms, is a question about the AGPL, not the Microsoft license. Microsoft can’t answer it, so ask a lawyer familiar with open-source licensing.

5) An alternative that sidesteps most of these questions

If you’d rather avoid the uncertainty in points 2 and 3, don’t embed the redistributable. Have your installer detect the runtime, as it already does, and, if it’s missing, download it from Microsoft’s official URL listed on Latest supported Visual C++ Redistributable downloads.

You’d still ship a single-file installer, but you’d no longer distribute Microsoft’s file yourself, and people who mirror your installer wouldn’t carry it either. The trade-offs: installation needs internet access when the runtime is missing, and this is a practical workaround, not a mechanism Microsoft has recommended.

Where to get an official answer

I couldn’t find a dedicated Visual Studio licensing contact for individual developers in the license or in the public documentation. The closest official route is the Contact us link on the Visual Studio support site (https://visualstudio.microsoft.com/support/), where you can ask to be routed to licensing and request a written clarification on points 2 and 3. For the AGPL side, independent legal counsel is the right place, since Microsoft can only speak to its own terms.

Hope this helps, and good luck with the release. If it does help, please consider accepting the answer.Hi Di Ts,

Thanks for such a well-researched question. It’s clear you’ve read the license carefully and want to do this the right way, which is more than most projects do before release.

I’ll be upfront: I’m a community member, not Microsoft, so this isn’t a licensing determination. What I can do is show you what the license text and the official documentation actually say. Questions 1, 4 and 5 can be answered reasonably well from those sources. Questions 2 and 3 can’t be settled from the license text or public documentation; they need an official answer from Microsoft. I’ll point you to where to ask at the end.

1) Can you bundle the unmodified VC++ Redistributable as an individual?

The license text supports it, subject to the distribution requirements.

• The Individual License clause allows an individual working on their own applications to use the software for those applications, whether to sell them or for any other purpose.
• The Distributable Code section allows you to distribute the object code of anything on the Distributable List (https://aka.ms/vs/18/redistribution).
• That list (Visual Studio 2026 redistribution page) includes the VC\redist folder, unmodified, distributed with your program. It also states that the same VC++ Redistributable package from the official download pages may be redistributed only by licensed Visual Studio users, under the Visual Studio license terms.

The Distribution Requirements in that section apply to anything you distribute. You must:

• add significant primary functionality to it in your application;
• require distributors and external end users to agree to terms that protect the Distributable Code “at least as much as these license terms” (this is the clause you’re asking about);
• indemnify Microsoft against claims related to your application, except claims based solely on the Distributable Code.

2 and 3) Is a separate pre-install acceptance enough? What about downstream distributors?

This is where the license stops giving clear answers. It states what must be achieved: distributors and external end users must agree to protective terms. It does not prescribe a mechanism, such as a click-through screen, an accompanying file, or acceptance before download.

There is also a Third Party Distribution clause that lets you permit distributors of your application to copy and distribute the Distributable Code as part of it, and requirement (ii) applies to them too. Whether your pre-install consent screen is enough for end users, and whether accompanying terms are enough for people who only re-host your installer without running it, are exactly the points I can’t answer from the text. Only Microsoft can give you a reliable answer here.

4) Can the Microsoft terms stay separate from your AGPL-3.0-only license?

The license’s Distribution Restrictions prohibit modifying or distributing the source code of any Distributable Code in a way that makes it subject to an “Excluded License”. The license defines that as one requiring, as a condition of use, modification or distribution, that code be disclosed in source form or that others may modify it.

Your plan is to ship the unmodified binary under Microsoft’s own terms, kept separate from your AGPL-licensed code. That doesn’t appear to conflict with the wording of this restriction.

The other direction, whether the AGPL itself allows your installer to bundle a proprietary runtime under separate terms, is a question about the AGPL, not the Microsoft license. Microsoft can’t answer it, so ask a lawyer familiar with open-source licensing.

5) An alternative that sidesteps most of these questions

If you’d rather avoid the uncertainty in points 2 and 3, don’t embed the redistributable. Have your installer detect the runtime, as it already does, and, if it’s missing, download it from Microsoft’s official URL listed on Latest supported Visual C++ Redistributable downloads.

You’d still ship a single-file installer, but you’d no longer distribute Microsoft’s file yourself, and people who mirror your installer wouldn’t carry it either. The trade-offs: installation needs internet access when the runtime is missing, and this is a practical workaround, not a mechanism Microsoft has recommended.

Where to get an official answer

I couldn’t find a dedicated Visual Studio licensing contact for individual developers in the license or in the public documentation. The closest official route is the Contact us link on the Visual Studio support site (https://visualstudio.microsoft.com/support/), where you can ask to be routed to licensing and request a written clarification on points 2 and 3. For the AGPL side, independent legal counsel is the right place, since Microsoft can only speak to its own terms.

Hope this helps, and good luck with the release. If it does help, please consider accepting the answer.

Fontes:

• Visual Studio Community 2026 License Terms
• Distributable Code for Visual Studio 2026 – Microsoft Learn
• Latest supported Visual C++ Redistributable downloads – Microsoft Learn