I read it (again) exactly the same way you did, Jim.

Your "average" lawyer is not going to be any help on this one; you're (rhetorically speaking) on your own here. (I'm guessing MS laywers are not "average", realized they could not make it stick, and made it ambiguous in order to generate FUD).

It's been said before: if we put "it" out there, and the "user" decides to run it under Linux, it "not my problem" ... A direct consequence of MS being ambiguous.

I doubt that MS would be inclined to take on the role of another SCO-type weenie (with the users) ... particularly since it would appear that they are singling out only one product.

And they first have to "find you".

>I read the "may only operate..." to really be saying 'may not operate correctly on other platforms'. After all, the prior bit says "...designed and tested for use in creating applications that run on..." meaning to me that it has not been 'designed and tested for anything else'. At least by Microsoft.
>
>If the EULA or KenL's response had said "may only be operated on..." then I think it would be clear. Clarity, however, as you have pointed out, was not the objective there.