Some may find this How-To Geek article useful:  Analyze Software EULAs the Easy Way

This example you give is amazing. I use a purpose NAS running Linux for my central storage on a home network, but if I were to take a redundant PC running Windows, and connect it to my home network as a NAS, then that action would be banned (provided the Win7 Home Premium licence says the same).

There is a word or so for a supplier who sneaks this kind of restriction in – spiv, or shark.

They now have “Windows 10 Enterprise for Virtual Desktops” SKU on their volume install media (the pulled 1809).  Whatever that means.

They are an impenetrable legal thicket indeed.

I am not talking about class actions or the landmark software/data policy rulings sought by countries (or the EU) against the tech giants but does anyone have a feel for how often a Windows EULA is actually enforced in the real world by Microsoft against an individual or small business? Is it common?

Due to their very complexity, how enforceable have they proven to be except megacorp vs megacorp?

Is it the threat of their enforcement that holds the power rather than them regularly being tested in court against “the little people”? I have no idea.

UKBrianC  Some years ago, Microsoft did go into a large number of companies (small and large) and insisted on a licence audit, and found that there were a large number of unlicensed copies of Office in use. They hammered the companies, I seem to remember and insisted on firm procedures to make sure all copies were properly licensed. Whether they would do that on some of the more arcane licence restrictions I know not, but they do not have a great reputation and they might do it to drive customers onto their revenue earning cloud services.

Yeah, lot of people never read those EULA and probably should. Not just on free stuff because you know nothing is free. But even on paid software where its become more popular then ever to include some very restrictive EULA.

I do believe they went after Homer Simpson once 😉

How often a Windows EULA is actually enforced in the real world by Microsoft against an individual or small business? Is it common?

Pretty much like – never? They are way too scared of setting a precedent about that junk being invalid. Loads of their EULA provisions are plain invalid in EU, e.g.

A standard part of boilerplate contracts that are done under the Uniform Commercial Code is what I call the “weasel clause”. That’s where the offering party reserves the right to change any part of the contract at any time, without negotiation, and without notification.

One could argue that the EULA specifically disallows the ability to set up a headless Windows 10 machine that one can remote into and use remotely.

Given that they have announced a Microsoft virtual desktop hosted on Azure, you can see that’s where they want the remote experience to be.

Yep, that’s where all of this is heading. (A few years from now) Unless you use entirely open-source tools, you will no longer be able to cobble together your own personal cloud or any other remote access scheme. Everyone will have to subscribe to an Azure Virtual Desktop. And most home users and pro users will do so. It won’t be cheap, but it won’t break the bank for individuals or small businesses.

When Microsoft announced that Windows 10 would be their last Desktop Operating System, this is what they really meant.

If you don’t like the taste of that koolaid, don’t use Windows for networking. Or Apple or Google or Amazon.

BTW, in Maryland and Delaware (and at least one Western State) EULAs are enforceable. They are as valid as actual laws.

Susan Bradley wrote:

In Windows 10 the eula specifically says this:
Section 2 c (v):
use the software as server software …

, and you may not:?

Susan Bradley wrote:

One could argue that the eula specifically disallows the ability to set up a headless Windows 10 machine that one can remote into and use remotely.

Both quoted sections refer to multiple users. I don’t think anything there precludes a single remote user.