Just one more thing I want to clarify. I've never said that the EULA as it currently reads is good or bad, fair or unfair. I'm only stating that MS has the right to put this in their EULA if they want.


>
>(speaking as a) non-lawyer, b) from german perspective)
>Since this EULA is packaged and read after the buy, you only run the risk of being challenged if you don't adhere. There might be some rules of "surprising clauses", especially if they are changed from older versions.
>
>MS giving you a "license" and keeping certain rights was challenged here in the question, whether it is allowed the sell the OS of a PC/OS bundle, which MS didn't allow in the EULA a few years ago. You are the owner of the OS and are allowed to sell it separately.
>
>Seen from that perspective it might be arguable, whether I am allowed to run my own copy on linux. But if I sell an app with the runtimes, how am I to control where it is installed ? If it works, it works. Who is the person MS will be going after ? The developer usually has no right to enforce how customers install the product. The only bugout might be an EULA referring to the MS EULA and try to stay out of it...
>
>In my eyes, there is no need for MS to fix issues arising on linux, only bugs cropping up on the specified OS. This is, in my eyes, a (legally) relevant business reason - keeping test cost down.
>
>I am not sure, whether MS's legal view on specifying the OS will be supported in (relevant) courts, but I don't want to be the one to test it. OTOH, MS might also not wish to get a ruling on this account.
>
>my 2 c's
>
>thomas