> We've had the same issue with the OpenSSL license and the other
> 3rd party packages which come with the Python Windows installer.

No, the issue was completely different. Those licenses literally
say "include a copy of the license text" (e.g. for OpenSSL
"Redistributions in binary form must reproduce the above copyright
 notice, this list of conditions [...]")

That's a requirement that I can understand. For the MS EULA,
I don't understand what it says, and I don't know whether
including it will make compliance with the license better or
worse. I need a lawyer to tell me what to do comply with the
license, then I can decide whether I like to do that, and the
lawyer can also tell me what the consequences might be if I
did something different.

> Do you really think that simply ignoring the fact that we are
> violating copyrights

I don't believe we are violating copyrights by not including the
license (and I don't believe you when you say we do). I would
believe a lawyer telling me so (although according to my experience
with lawyers, the lawyer may not actually say that, but only tell
me what to do).

> I'd love to, but haven't found a way to determine the path to the
> eula.txt file in a reliable way.

So I propose to defer this until a) we have a reliable confirmation
that it is the right thing to do, and b) there is also a proposal
for an implementation strategy. Blocking the release for this
issue is really counter-productive.