> We are not talking about uninstallation. We are talking about bundling.
> And yes, restrictions here are quite legal and at least Microsoft actually
> uses this tatic - and judges accept it.
As far as I know, the legality of those contracts between Microsoft and the OEMs was never tested in court. So you can't say "judges accept it," because they were never asked.
It would be incredibly self-destructive for any OEM to sue Microsoft over this matter, because Microsoft has the ability to make or break them by offering or witholding discounts on Windows. To put it another way, Microsoft is the sole supplier for an essential part-- the Windows license.
> It's the same as with book: if you buy two books from authors which hate
> each other and then you can use scissors and glue to create "private
> compilation" of their works - noone can prevent this. But if you want to
> publish such compilation you'll need permission from both authors.
That's a clear, obvious case of creating a derived work. It has nothing to do with bundling.
On a somewhat related note, I know that Microsoft claims (in their EULA) that you can't run certain versions of Windows inside a virtual machine. I'd really like to see the legality of that restriction tested in court.
If it's legal for them to enforce this restriction, then logically it should be legal for any program to do the same-- so we'd end up with a bunch of programs charging extra for the "prviliege" of using them inside a virtual machine.