By adding yet another indirection. Compiling the binaries for Linux and just shipping it with a fat "no warranty" label on top would have been 100x better. Even Linux distros do that (GPL: `THERE IS NO WARRANTY FOR THE PROGRAM, TO THE EXTENT PERMITTED BY APPLICABLE LAW.`)

You want them to sell their product with a "if it doesn't work it's not our problem" label? I'm sure there are consumer protection laws against that.

The no particular fitness of purpose clause in nearly every EULA you’ve ever clicked through is literally that.

EULAs are mostly invalid garbage - they include "TO THE FULLEST EXTENT APPLICABLE UNDER THE LAW" is clever lawyer-speak saying "this only applies if we can legally get away with it". They include that because if they didn't, then any explicitly illegal demand they made would void the entire contract.

Just because the EULA requires your firstborn son, doesn't mean they have any claim whatsoever.

EULAs that are shown post-purchase are invalid in all of EU, there have been numerous court cases about it. If software makers want a legally binding contract it has to be shown before purchase - if you already have bought something and are just installing it, the EULA presented during the installation is meaningless.